FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Royals
Royals
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im not defending them but you need to check your facts. Most of their income does not come from the taxpayers. " I didnt say it did but the money stated did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Royal family bring in so much tourism it won't disappear. The way they've gone about it is very wrong " Paris has more visitors than uk and it had the good sense to execute there royals.tourists dont come for the royal family they dont get to see them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im not defending them but you need to check your facts. Most of their income does not come from the taxpayers. I didnt say it did but the money stated did." The majority of Harry’s money comes from the Duchy of Cornwall not the state. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"50 million quid taken from the tax payer including 2 and a half mill to renovate there cottage and then they abscond. Isn't it time we got rid of the whole lot of inbred squalid intellectually bereft freeloaders. How can you be genuflective because of an accident of birth. Outdated defunct undemocratic.Oh and where are the charges that should be brought against dimwit Andy.. given the same circumstances you or i would be clapped in irons." Is that you Jeremy?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It strikes me that they’re either very badly advised or Harry is a bit of a petulant hot head. As Charles takes on more of his mother’s duties, he’s trying to modernise/streamline the Monarchy which is a good thing. The sooner Harry realises that he’s slipping down the pecking order the better. They screwed up after their African tour last year and with this latest announcement they are isolating themselves even more." To be honest i’d say it’s Meghan who wears the trousers in that relationship and i think she’s currently wearing Harry’s balls as earrings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It strikes me that they’re either very badly advised or Harry is a bit of a petulant hot head. As Charles takes on more of his mother’s duties, he’s trying to modernise/streamline the Monarchy which is a good thing. The sooner Harry realises that he’s slipping down the pecking order the better. They screwed up after their African tour last year and with this latest announcement they are isolating themselves even more. To be honest i’d say it’s Meghan who wears the trousers in that relationship and i think she’s currently wearing Harry’s balls as earrings. " Indeed, that’s the impression I have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No keep them they are our Micky Mouse and brink money into the country. Anyone with and intelligence realises their value to British industry. Said that we don't really need more than the core royals but the main ones leep them its a job and lie in any job you have holidays and time away from it. " cutting fucking cuttingribbons and squeezing flesh and having a flunky wearing brass eppollettes cleaning your hole after you defecate. I wonder what his job title is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No keep them they are our Micky Mouse and brink money into the country. Anyone with and intelligence realises their value to British industry. Said that we don't really need more than the core royals but the main ones leep them its a job and lie in any job you have holidays and time away from it. cutting fucking cuttingribbons and squeezing flesh and having a flunky wearing brass eppollettes cleaning your hole after you defecate. I wonder what his job title is" It could be worse we have porkers also employed by the state who carry out institutionalised racism they are no better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Any how I'm on a rant I'd better stop! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not a supporter of the Royals. AT all. The arguments about them creating wealth through tourism is not a reasonable for me. Quirk of fate, inter marriage or whichever theory of enthronement put them there is also clearly irrelevant. As individuals I would probably like some and detest others. As i would in every other sphere of my life. However I understand they have a whole swathe of support for their ongoing institution from many quarters. I also understand their wrong doings are not met in the same as mine or yours would do. However our wrong doings will be lost in the midst of time and cross the boughs of only a fraction of people. They, like Andrew, will be known by millions of people and be recorded in the annals of history & forever be remarked upon by media repeatedly resurfacing stories for different generations. Punishment enough? I don't know - he hasn't been found guilty but he has been tried publically by his own admissions and is bearing the weight of the punishments that are being regally bestowed on him and sadly his children Remember it's not their fault. In regards to Harry and her - I've lost of respect for this young man who in his earlier days seemed a very affable young chap - royal or not. He is now as far up his bottom as he can get. Now I don't have an issue if they want to step back - but sit down as well!!! Be in or out - don't be dipping your toes when you feel like it, you are financially independent already - stop taking from the tax payers honey pot. Pay a fair rent for your cottage - its ours not yours. Financially independent don't get things for free including your security
Any how I'm on a rant I'd better stop! "Frogmore cottage belongs to the Queen, not us | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not a supporter of the Royals. AT all. The arguments about them creating wealth through tourism is not a reasonable for me. Quirk of fate, inter marriage or whichever theory of enthronement put them there is also clearly irrelevant. As individuals I would probably like some and detest others. As i would in every other sphere of my life. However I understand they have a whole swathe of support for their ongoing institution from many quarters. I also understand their wrong doings are not met in the same as mine or yours would do. However our wrong doings will be lost in the midst of time and cross the boughs of only a fraction of people. They, like Andrew, will be known by millions of people and be recorded in the annals of history & forever be remarked upon by media repeatedly resurfacing stories for different generations. Punishment enough? I don't know - he hasn't been found guilty but he has been tried publically by his own admissions and is bearing the weight of the punishments that are being regally bestowed on him and sadly his children Remember it's not their fault. In regards to Harry and her - I've lost of respect for this young man who in his earlier days seemed a very affable young chap - royal or not. He is now as far up his bottom as he can get. Now I don't have an issue if they want to step back - but sit down as well!!! Be in or out - don't be dipping your toes when you feel like it, you are financially independent already - stop taking from the tax payers honey pot. Pay a fair rent for your cottage - its ours not yours. Financially independent don't get things for free including your security
Any how I'm on a rant I'd better stop!
Frogmore cottage belongs to the Queen, not us "she didnt pay for its renovation though did she. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Royal family bring in so much tourism it won't disappear. The way they've gone about it is very wrong Paris has more visitors than uk and it had the good sense to execute there royals.tourists dont come for the royal family they dont get to see them." Actually I see them quite often | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Royal family bring in so much tourism it won't disappear. The way they've gone about it is very wrong Paris has more visitors than uk and it had the good sense to execute there royals.tourists dont come for the royal family they dont get to see them. Actually I see them quite often" you must live in Canada then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bring out the guillotine!" I'd sharpen the blade and next would be the kardasians | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bring out the guillotine!I'd sharpen the blade and next would be the kardasians" Not the house of lords? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not a supporter of the Royals. AT all. The arguments about them creating wealth through tourism is not a reasonable for me. Quirk of fate, inter marriage or whichever theory of enthronement put them there is also clearly irrelevant. As individuals I would probably like some and detest others. As i would in every other sphere of my life. However I understand they have a whole swathe of support for their ongoing institution from many quarters. I also understand their wrong doings are not met in the same as mine or yours would do. However our wrong doings will be lost in the midst of time and cross the boughs of only a fraction of people. They, like Andrew, will be known by millions of people and be recorded in the annals of history & forever be remarked upon by media repeatedly resurfacing stories for different generations. Punishment enough? I don't know - he hasn't been found guilty but he has been tried publically by his own admissions and is bearing the weight of the punishments that are being regally bestowed on him and sadly his children Remember it's not their fault. In regards to Harry and her - I've lost of respect for this young man who in his earlier days seemed a very affable young chap - royal or not. He is now as far up his bottom as he can get. Now I don't have an issue if they want to step back - but sit down as well!!! Be in or out - don't be dipping your toes when you feel like it, you are financially independent already - stop taking from the tax payers honey pot. Pay a fair rent for your cottage - its ours not yours. Financially independent don't get things for free including your security
Any how I'm on a rant I'd better stop!
Frogmore cottage belongs to the Queen, not us she didnt pay for its renovation though did she. "No the taxpayer did, still doesn't make it ours. As a taxpayer , I have private and dental healthcare and I have no children, but I'm happy for some of my taxes to go towards those things , as I am for a few pence to go towards our royal family, I don't get to choose either, where my taxes go | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im not defending them but you need to check your facts. Most of their income does not come from the taxpayers. " Don’t speak facts. They don’t want to hear that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it works out we give them like 50p a year each I'm not against the royal family so I don't care " You’d think it was half our yearly salary the way some are going on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im not defending them but you need to check your facts. Most of their income does not come from the taxpayers. Don’t speak facts. They don’t want to hear that." Then you shout until they have no choice but to listen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im not defending them but you need to check your facts. Most of their income does not come from the taxpayers. Don’t speak facts. They don’t want to hear that. Then you shout until they have no choice but to listen." I wouldn’t waste my time personally. It’s far more entertaining watching people virtually foam at the mouth at H&M. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im not defending them but you need to check your facts. Most of their income does not come from the taxpayers. Don’t speak facts. They don’t want to hear that. Then you shout until they have no choice but to listen. I wouldn’t waste my time personally. It’s far more entertaining watching people virtually foam at the mouth at H&M." I feel compelled to correct people myself. I cant stand misinformation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Royal family bring in so much tourism it won't disappear. The way they've gone about it is very wrong Paris has more visitors than uk and it had the good sense to execute there royals.tourists dont come for the royal family they dont get to see them. Actually I see them quite oftenyou must live in Canada then" The poster lives in Norfolk, home of Sandringham house, which the Queen owns, she is seen out and about in the area. The house was bought in 1862 for the then Prince of Wales and has remained in the Royal family | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it works out we give them like 50p a year each I'm not against the royal family so I don't care You’d think it was half our yearly salary the way some are going on. "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im not defending them but you need to check your facts. Most of their income does not come from the taxpayers. " Around £345 million of it does though. How do you think historically the monarchy got rich? They stole it. The concept of one family being genetically superior is bonkers and being entitled to castles and untold riches whilst people sleep on the streets is obscene (as is people being accepting of it). The monarchy has never been funded like other public bodies, which are usually set an annual budget based on what they actually need to spend. Until 2013, the costs of the monarchy – that's the Queen in her role as head of state and the other working royals – were funded by a civil list payment and a number of separate grants covering travel, property maintenance, communications and other expenses. All these costs have now been rolled into one single annual payment called the “Sovereign Grant”. This has been set at 25% of surplus revenue from the crown estate - a publicly-owned property portfolio - resulting in a payment of £76.1m for 2017/2018. However, the Sovereign Grant is just one part of the total cost of the monarchy. The royal family's security bill is picked up by the metropolitan police, for example, while the costs of royal visits are borne by local councils. Meanwhile, income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall – despite belonging to the nation - goes directly to the Queen and Prince Charles respectively, depriving the treasury of tens of millions of pounds every year. When all this hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be around £345m annually. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im not defending them but you need to check your facts. Most of their income does not come from the taxpayers. Around £345 million of it does though. How do you think historically the monarchy got rich? They stole it. The concept of one family being genetically superior is bonkers and being entitled to castles and untold riches whilst people sleep on the streets is obscene (as is people being accepting of it). The monarchy has never been funded like other public bodies, which are usually set an annual budget based on what they actually need to spend. Until 2013, the costs of the monarchy – that's the Queen in her role as head of state and the other working royals – were funded by a civil list payment and a number of separate grants covering travel, property maintenance, communications and other expenses. All these costs have now been rolled into one single annual payment called the “Sovereign Grant”. This has been set at 25% of surplus revenue from the crown estate - a publicly-owned property portfolio - resulting in a payment of £76.1m for 2017/2018. However, the Sovereign Grant is just one part of the total cost of the monarchy. The royal family's security bill is picked up by the metropolitan police, for example, while the costs of royal visits are borne by local councils. Meanwhile, income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall – despite belonging to the nation - goes directly to the Queen and Prince Charles respectively, depriving the treasury of tens of millions of pounds every year. When all this hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be around £345m annually." And as my maths is crap, how much is that per capita? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im not defending them but you need to check your facts. Most of their income does not come from the taxpayers. Around £345 million of it does though. How do you think historically the monarchy got rich? They stole it. The concept of one family being genetically superior is bonkers and being entitled to castles and untold riches whilst people sleep on the streets is obscene (as is people being accepting of it). The monarchy has never been funded like other public bodies, which are usually set an annual budget based on what they actually need to spend. Until 2013, the costs of the monarchy – that's the Queen in her role as head of state and the other working royals – were funded by a civil list payment and a number of separate grants covering travel, property maintenance, communications and other expenses. All these costs have now been rolled into one single annual payment called the “Sovereign Grant”. This has been set at 25% of surplus revenue from the crown estate - a publicly-owned property portfolio - resulting in a payment of £76.1m for 2017/2018. However, the Sovereign Grant is just one part of the total cost of the monarchy. The royal family's security bill is picked up by the metropolitan police, for example, while the costs of royal visits are borne by local councils. Meanwhile, income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall – despite belonging to the nation - goes directly to the Queen and Prince Charles respectively, depriving the treasury of tens of millions of pounds every year. When all this hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be around £345m annually." here here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 yep off with their heads  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"50 million quid taken from the tax payer including 2 and a half mill to renovate there cottage and then they abscond. Isn't it time we got rid of the whole lot of inbred squalid intellectually bereft freeloaders. How can you be genuflective because of an accident of birth. Outdated defunct undemocratic.Oh and where are the charges that should be brought against dimwit Andy.. given the same circumstances you or i would be clapped in irons." Not too keen on them then no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That isn't the point 50 p or 500 quid...its the ethical conundrum that cant be justified when so many exist in poverty and deprivation.society should be a meritocracy that first and foremost takes care of those marginalised." If you say so | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That isn't the point 50 p or 500 quid...its the ethical conundrum that cant be justified when so many exist in poverty and deprivation.society should be a meritocracy that first and foremost takes care of those marginalised. Fuck ..you again If you say so " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Watching this thread. Some of the judgements are simply . "Always sparks a good debate doesn't it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That isn't the point 50 p or 500 quid...its the ethical conundrum that cant be justified when so many exist in poverty and deprivation.society should be a meritocracy that first and foremost takes care of those marginalised. Fuck ..you again If you say so "Sorry?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That isn't the point 50 p or 500 quid...its the ethical conundrum that cant be justified when so many exist in poverty and deprivation.society should be a meritocracy that first and foremost takes care of those marginalised." If you think the poor would be better off without the monarchy, dream on, it would make no difference imo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That isn't the point 50 p or 500 quid...its the ethical conundrum that cant be justified when so many exist in poverty and deprivation.society should be a meritocracy that first and foremost takes care of those marginalised. If you think the poor would be better off without the monarchy, dream on, it would make no difference imo. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That isn't the point 50 p or 500 quid...its the ethical conundrum that cant be justified when so many exist in poverty and deprivation.society should be a meritocracy that first and foremost takes care of those marginalised." Would you like your 50p refunded but cash or cheque? How will you spend it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That isn't the point 50 p or 500 quid...its the ethical conundrum that cant be justified when so many exist in poverty and deprivation.society should be a meritocracy that first and foremost takes care of those marginalised. Would you like your 50p refunded but cash or cheque? How will you spend it? "Haha love it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Watching this thread. Some of the judgements are simply . " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im not defending them but you need to check your facts. Most of their income does not come from the taxpayers. Around £345 million of it does though. How do you think historically the monarchy got rich? They stole it. The concept of one family being genetically superior is bonkers and being entitled to castles and untold riches whilst people sleep on the streets is obscene (as is people being accepting of it). The monarchy has never been funded like other public bodies, which are usually set an annual budget based on what they actually need to spend. Until 2013, the costs of the monarchy – that's the Queen in her role as head of state and the other working royals – were funded by a civil list payment and a number of separate grants covering travel, property maintenance, communications and other expenses. All these costs have now been rolled into one single annual payment called the “Sovereign Grant”. This has been set at 25% of surplus revenue from the crown estate - a publicly-owned property portfolio - resulting in a payment of £76.1m for 2017/2018. However, the Sovereign Grant is just one part of the total cost of the monarchy. The royal family's security bill is picked up by the metropolitan police, for example, while the costs of royal visits are borne by local councils. Meanwhile, income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall – despite belonging to the nation - goes directly to the Queen and Prince Charles respectively, depriving the treasury of tens of millions of pounds every year. When all this hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be around £345m annually." and the other 75% of the crown estate goes to...... ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year " Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year " Yeah mine too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales." Every country has a past and a bad history, ours is no different. Do you really think if the crown estate and her public holdings we sold off the British public would see a penny if it .... of course they wouldn’t | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"50 million quid taken from the tax payer including 2 and a half mill to renovate there cottage and then they abscond. Isn't it time we got rid of the whole lot of inbred squalid intellectually bereft freeloaders. How can you be genuflective because of an accident of birth. Outdated defunct undemocratic.Oh and where are the charges that should be brought against dimwit Andy.. given the same circumstances you or i would be clapped in irons." Interesting....... They haven't taken any money from the taxpayer. Prince Andrew will only be charged if there's evidence he's committed a crime. Two down......  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Every country has a past and a bad history, ours is no different. Do you really think if the crown estate and her public holdings we sold off the British public would see a penny if it .... of course they wouldn’t " So continuing to profit from slavery and drug sales is ok because they're royalty? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Every country has a past and a bad history, ours is no different. Do you really think if the crown estate and her public holdings we sold off the British public would see a penny if it .... of course they wouldn’t So continuing to profit from slavery and drug sales is ok because they're royalty?" Oh my face palm... not worth a response ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Every country has a past and a bad history, ours is no different. Do you really think if the crown estate and her public holdings we sold off the British public would see a penny if it .... of course they wouldn’t So continuing to profit from slavery and drug sales is ok because they're royalty?" How are the Royal Family continuing to profit from slavery and drug sales? Evidence please. Thanks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As for my £1.24 helping an individual with a terminal illness, it might if the government decided to spend it that way Be grateful we have a free health care system, that provides the best treatment it can. One day we will go the way of the rest of the world and pay for your treatment " Yes I have no idea where my taxes go, but hopefully they're helping someone | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales." Drug sales? Slavery? Probably. At the time rich landowners owned slaves. Other countries' resources, possibly at the time the whole of Europe spent time fighting between themselves cos they were greedy fuckers and believed they were entitled to be royal head of that state (and when Kings actually went to war). The same happened in this country. That's my surmising... Your turn. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Every country has a past and a bad history, ours is no different. Do you really think if the crown estate and her public holdings we sold off the British public would see a penny if it .... of course they wouldn’t So continuing to profit from slavery and drug sales is ok because they're royalty?" Where are you getting your "facts" from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Every country has a past and a bad history, ours is no different. Do you really think if the crown estate and her public holdings we sold off the British public would see a penny if it .... of course they wouldn’t So continuing to profit from slavery and drug sales is ok because they're royalty? How are the Royal Family continuing to profit from slavery and drug sales? Evidence please. Thanks." There's lots of evidence, but you'll have to look for it. Questioning it and demanding evidence that I can't link to because of site rules does not make my point invalid. Money gained from the methods I mentioned was invested in land and other resources that continue to provide revenue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Every country has a past and a bad history, ours is no different. Do you really think if the crown estate and her public holdings we sold off the British public would see a penny if it .... of course they wouldn’t So continuing to profit from slavery and drug sales is ok because they're royalty? Where are you getting your "facts" from? " Education. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Drug sales? Slavery? Probably. At the time rich landowners owned slaves. Other countries' resources, possibly at the time the whole of Europe spent time fighting between themselves cos they were greedy fuckers and believed they were entitled to be royal head of that state (and when Kings actually went to war). The same happened in this country. That's my surmising... Your turn. " Never heard of the Opium Wars with China??????? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Every country has a past and a bad history, ours is no different. Do you really think if the crown estate and her public holdings we sold off the British public would see a penny if it .... of course they wouldn’t So continuing to profit from slavery and drug sales is ok because they're royalty? Where are you getting your "facts" from? Education." Bwahahahahahahahaha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Every country has a past and a bad history, ours is no different. Do you really think if the crown estate and her public holdings we sold off the British public would see a penny if it .... of course they wouldn’t So continuing to profit from slavery and drug sales is ok because they're royalty? How are the Royal Family continuing to profit from slavery and drug sales? Evidence please. Thanks. There's lots of evidence, but you'll have to look for it. Questioning it and demanding evidence that I can't link to because of site rules does not make my point invalid. Money gained from the methods I mentioned was invested in land and other resources that continue to provide revenue." Feel free to PM your evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Every country has a past and a bad history, ours is no different. Do you really think if the crown estate and her public holdings we sold off the British public would see a penny if it .... of course they wouldn’t So continuing to profit from slavery and drug sales is ok because they're royalty? Where are you getting your "facts" from? Education. Bwahahahahahahahaha" Why do you laugh at education? What's wrong with you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Every country has a past and a bad history, ours is no different. Do you really think if the crown estate and her public holdings we sold off the British public would see a penny if it .... of course they wouldn’t So continuing to profit from slavery and drug sales is ok because they're royalty? Where are you getting your "facts" from? Education. Bwahahahahahahahaha Why do you laugh at education? What's wrong with you?" What's wrong with me? I've just bust a rib...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and the other 75% of the crown estate goes to...... ? The Treasury. £343 million for 2018/2019 profit from the crown estate management of its portfolio The Queen also pays tax on her private income from the Duchy of Lancaster and her private holdings, like her stud farm and other alike businesses and properties I will say no more ! " Hey look at me.... I paid tax like everybody else in the land. On property that was given to my family for free. Taxation is an act parliemnt (one she is actually exempt from) why should be treated differently. These tax (payments) are made voluntarily. On a select part of her holdings not all of them. Most of her wealth come from her mother... About (£70 mil) And guess how much inheritance tax she paid. Zilch | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Every country has a past and a bad history, ours is no different. Do you really think if the crown estate and her public holdings we sold off the British public would see a penny if it .... of course they wouldn’t So continuing to profit from slavery and drug sales is ok because they're royalty? Where are you getting your "facts" from? Education. Bwahahahahahahahaha Why do you laugh at education? What's wrong with you? What's wrong with me? I've just bust a rib......" I've sent you some links. When you've read them all please feel free to discuss it further like an adult, if you wish. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Every country has a past and a bad history, ours is no different. Do you really think if the crown estate and her public holdings we sold off the British public would see a penny if it .... of course they wouldn’t So continuing to profit from slavery and drug sales is ok because they're royalty? Where are you getting your "facts" from? Education. Bwahahahahahahahaha Why do you laugh at education? What's wrong with you? What's wrong with me? I've just bust a rib...... I've sent you some links. When you've read them all please feel free to discuss it further like an adult, if you wish." Ta. I'll educate myself further later. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Drug sales? Slavery? Probably. At the time rich landowners owned slaves. Other countries' resources, possibly at the time the whole of Europe spent time fighting between themselves cos they were greedy fuckers and believed they were entitled to be royal head of that state (and when Kings actually went to war). The same happened in this country. That's my surmising... Your turn. Never heard of the Opium Wars with China??????? "Ok, let's punish people for something that happened way before they were born. Get a grip. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and the other 75% of the crown estate goes to...... ? The Treasury. £343 million for 2018/2019 profit from the crown estate management of its portfolio The Queen also pays tax on her private income from the Duchy of Lancaster and her private holdings, like her stud farm and other alike businesses and properties I will say no more ! Hey look at me.... I paid tax like everybody else in the land. On property that was given to my family for free. Taxation is an act parliemnt (one she is actually exempt from) why should be treated differently. These tax (payments) are made voluntarily. On a select part of her holdings not all of them. Most of her wealth come from her mother... About (£70 mil) And guess how much inheritance tax she paid. Zilch " You said it. She voluntarily chooses to pay tax when she doesn’t need to The two properties she owns were left to her by her father I don’t begrudge them anything and changing history is never going to happen. Live with it .... the grass is not always greener on the other side. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The royal family exists because society accepted the idea over time of them giving up political power in exchange for titular power and retention of hereditary privilege. Without the crown, they are just another aristocratic family with huge personal wealth. An elected head of state probably would cost less." Works in America .. oh .. wait .. hang on ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Drug sales? Slavery? Probably. At the time rich landowners owned slaves. Other countries' resources, possibly at the time the whole of Europe spent time fighting between themselves cos they were greedy fuckers and believed they were entitled to be royal head of that state (and when Kings actually went to war). The same happened in this country. That's my surmising... Your turn. Never heard of the Opium Wars with China???????
Ok, let's punish people for something that happened way before they were born. Get a grip. "Before who was born? The royal family? And what punishment are you talking about? I mentioned no punishment. People all over the world pay for things that were done by their ancestors in one way or another. White people in the US have payed reparations for slavery in many ways, and they certainly weren't born when slavery flourished there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We say sack them take there titles off em send them packing and get rid of his uknoassport while you are at it " , Why take his passport? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We say sack them take there titles off em send them packing and get rid of his uknoassport while you are at it , Why take his passport?" Probably because he dares mention he wants to live somewhere else other than the U.K. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We say sack them take there titles off em send them packing and get rid of his uknoassport while you are at it , Why take his passport? Probably because he dares mention he wants to live somewhere else other than the U.K. " Aah I thought he'd become the devil incarnate! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ok, so to appease the angry, bitter, brigade let's get rid of them. I'm pretty sure you'll wake up the following day and feel absolutely no difference. Happy now?" This. So many people who dislike Harry & Meghan wanted the media to stop posting about them, they wanted them to stand down or disappear. And now they have decided to do so, the same people are still angry as fuck. Can’t win. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ok, so to appease the angry, bitter, brigade let's get rid of them. I'm pretty sure you'll wake up the following day and feel absolutely no difference. Happy now? This. So many people who dislike Harry & Meghan wanted the media to stop posting about them, they wanted them to stand down or disappear. And now they have decided to do so, the same people are still angry as fuck. Can’t win. " You can't | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and the other 75% of the crown estate goes to...... ? The Treasury. £343 million for 2018/2019 profit from the crown estate management of its portfolio The Queen also pays tax on her private income from the Duchy of Lancaster and her private holdings, like her stud farm and other alike businesses and properties I will say no more ! Hey look at me.... I paid tax like everybody else in the land. On property that was given to my family for free. Taxation is an act parliemnt (one she is actually exempt from) why should be treated differently. These tax (payments) are made voluntarily. On a select part of her holdings not all of them. Most of her wealth come from her mother... About (£70 mil) And guess how much inheritance tax she paid. Zilch You said it. She voluntarily chooses to pay tax when she doesn’t need to The two properties she owns were left to her by her father I don’t begrudge them anything and changing history is never going to happen. Live with it .... the grass is not always greener on the other side. " Voluntary but in this case means... compromise When labour got Into power and had a massive review on their finances. The payments where made "In lieu" of tax. They never made a tax payment before this The value of the payments are hidden and only The privy purse and only apply to gains of disposal of assets made after the 90s so even if they sold the lot tomorrow . The govt would get bugger all I worked for coutts where the queen's personal holdings are held. Even with a cursory glance of a few documents these people are stupendously rich Their expensees are covered by the state and they have taxation rights that would have google and Starbucks cream their pants Your are entitle to support them but to say they ONLY cost £1.24 (67 million) is disingenuous | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and the other 75% of the crown estate goes to...... ? The Treasury. £343 million for 2018/2019 profit from the crown estate management of its portfolio The Queen also pays tax on her private income from the Duchy of Lancaster and her private holdings, like her stud farm and other alike businesses and properties I will say no more ! Hey look at me.... I paid tax like everybody else in the land. On property that was given to my family for free. Taxation is an act parliemnt (one she is actually exempt from) why should be treated differently. These tax (payments) are made voluntarily. On a select part of her holdings not all of them. Most of her wealth come from her mother... About (£70 mil) And guess how much inheritance tax she paid. Zilch You said it. She voluntarily chooses to pay tax when she doesn’t need to The two properties she owns were left to her by her father I don’t begrudge them anything and changing history is never going to happen. Live with it .... the grass is not always greener on the other side. Voluntary but in this case means... compromise When labour got Into power and had a massive review on their finances. The payments where made "In lieu" of tax. They never made a tax payment before this The value of the payments are hidden and only The privy purse and only apply to gains of disposal of assets made after the 90s so even if they sold the lot tomorrow . The govt would get bugger all I worked for coutts where the queen's personal holdings are held. Even with a cursory glance of a few documents these people are stupendously rich Their expensees are covered by the state and they have taxation rights that would have google and Starbucks cream their pants Your are entitle to support them but to say they ONLY cost £1.24 (67 million) is disingenuous" Ooh are you allowed to divulge that information? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and the other 75% of the crown estate goes to...... ? The Treasury. £343 million for 2018/2019 profit from the crown estate management of its portfolio The Queen also pays tax on her private income from the Duchy of Lancaster and her private holdings, like her stud farm and other alike businesses and properties I will say no more ! Hey look at me.... I paid tax like everybody else in the land. On property that was given to my family for free. Taxation is an act parliemnt (one she is actually exempt from) why should be treated differently. These tax (payments) are made voluntarily. On a select part of her holdings not all of them. Most of her wealth come from her mother... About (£70 mil) And guess how much inheritance tax she paid. Zilch You said it. She voluntarily chooses to pay tax when she doesn’t need to The two properties she owns were left to her by her father I don’t begrudge them anything and changing history is never going to happen. Live with it .... the grass is not always greener on the other side. Voluntary but in this case means... compromise When labour got Into power and had a massive review on their finances. The payments where made "In lieu" of tax. They never made a tax payment before this The value of the payments are hidden and only The privy purse and only apply to gains of disposal of assets made after the 90s so even if they sold the lot tomorrow . The govt would get bugger all I worked for coutts where the queen's personal holdings are held. Even with a cursory glance of a few documents these people are stupendously rich Their expensees are covered by the state and they have taxation rights that would have google and Starbucks cream their pants Your are entitle to support them but to say they ONLY cost £1.24 (67 million) is disingenuous Ooh are you allowed to divulge that information? "I worked there too and no he’s not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and the other 75% of the crown estate goes to...... ? The Treasury. £343 million for 2018/2019 profit from the crown estate management of its portfolio The Queen also pays tax on her private income from the Duchy of Lancaster and her private holdings, like her stud farm and other alike businesses and properties I will say no more ! Hey look at me.... I paid tax like everybody else in the land. On property that was given to my family for free. Taxation is an act parliemnt (one she is actually exempt from) why should be treated differently. These tax (payments) are made voluntarily. On a select part of her holdings not all of them. Most of her wealth come from her mother... About (£70 mil) And guess how much inheritance tax she paid. Zilch You said it. She voluntarily chooses to pay tax when she doesn’t need to The two properties she owns were left to her by her father I don’t begrudge them anything and changing history is never going to happen. Live with it .... the grass is not always greener on the other side. Voluntary but in this case means... compromise When labour got Into power and had a massive review on their finances. The payments where made "In lieu" of tax. They never made a tax payment before this The value of the payments are hidden and only The privy purse and only apply to gains of disposal of assets made after the 90s so even if they sold the lot tomorrow . The govt would get bugger all I worked for coutts where the queen's personal holdings are held. Even with a cursory glance of a few documents these people are stupendously rich Their expensees are covered by the state and they have taxation rights that would have google and Starbucks cream their pants Your are entitle to support them but to say they ONLY cost £1.24 (67 million) is disingenuous Ooh are you allowed to divulge that information?
I worked there too and no he’s not "I worked at Lloyds and wasn't either | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and the other 75% of the crown estate goes to...... ? The Treasury. £343 million for 2018/2019 profit from the crown estate management of its portfolio The Queen also pays tax on her private income from the Duchy of Lancaster and her private holdings, like her stud farm and other alike businesses and properties I will say no more ! Hey look at me.... I paid tax like everybody else in the land. On property that was given to my family for free. Taxation is an act parliemnt (one she is actually exempt from) why should be treated differently. These tax (payments) are made voluntarily. On a select part of her holdings not all of them. Most of her wealth come from her mother... About (£70 mil) And guess how much inheritance tax she paid. Zilch You said it. She voluntarily chooses to pay tax when she doesn’t need to The two properties she owns were left to her by her father I don’t begrudge them anything and changing history is never going to happen. Live with it .... the grass is not always greener on the other side. Voluntary but in this case means... compromise When labour got Into power and had a massive review on their finances. The payments where made "In lieu" of tax. They never made a tax payment before this The value of the payments are hidden and only The privy purse and only apply to gains of disposal of assets made after the 90s so even if they sold the lot tomorrow . The govt would get bugger all I worked for coutts where the queen's personal holdings are held. Even with a cursory glance of a few documents these people are stupendously rich Their expensees are covered by the state and they have taxation rights that would have google and Starbucks cream their pants Your are entitle to support them but to say they ONLY cost £1.24 (67 million) is disingenuous Ooh are you allowed to divulge that information?
I worked there too and no he’s not "Discreet  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and the other 75% of the crown estate goes to...... ? The Treasury. £343 million for 2018/2019 profit from the crown estate management of its portfolio The Queen also pays tax on her private income from the Duchy of Lancaster and her private holdings, like her stud farm and other alike businesses and properties I will say no more ! Hey look at me.... I paid tax like everybody else in the land. On property that was given to my family for free. Taxation is an act parliemnt (one she is actually exempt from) why should be treated differently. These tax (payments) are made voluntarily. On a select part of her holdings not all of them. Most of her wealth come from her mother... About (£70 mil) And guess how much inheritance tax she paid. Zilch You said it. She voluntarily chooses to pay tax when she doesn’t need to The two properties she owns were left to her by her father I don’t begrudge them anything and changing history is never going to happen. Live with it .... the grass is not always greener on the other side. Voluntary but in this case means... compromise When labour got Into power and had a massive review on their finances. The payments where made "In lieu" of tax. They never made a tax payment before this The value of the payments are hidden and only The privy purse and only apply to gains of disposal of assets made after the 90s so even if they sold the lot tomorrow . The govt would get bugger all I worked for coutts where the queen's personal holdings are held. Even with a cursory glance of a few documents these people are stupendously rich Their expensees are covered by the state and they have taxation rights that would have google and Starbucks cream their pants Your are entitle to support them but to say they ONLY cost £1.24 (67 million) is disingenuous Ooh are you allowed to divulge that information?
I worked there too and no he’s not
Discreet "Off with his head | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes they are rich. We all know that As per the accounts published we are also fully aware of what she receives from the government from land that the crown owns and the royalty have owned for hundreds of years, it its there in black and white for all to see. As for what you disclosed, you’ve just breached basic confidentiality ! " Oops | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and the other 75% of the crown estate goes to...... ? The Treasury. £343 million for 2018/2019 profit from the crown estate management of its portfolio The Queen also pays tax on her private income from the Duchy of Lancaster and her private holdings, like her stud farm and other alike businesses and properties I will say no more ! Hey look at me.... I paid tax like everybody else in the land. On property that was given to my family for free. Taxation is an act parliemnt (one she is actually exempt from) why should be treated differently. These tax (payments) are made voluntarily. On a select part of her holdings not all of them. Most of her wealth come from her mother... About (£70 mil) And guess how much inheritance tax she paid. Zilch You said it. She voluntarily chooses to pay tax when she doesn’t need to The two properties she owns were left to her by her father I don’t begrudge them anything and changing history is never going to happen. Live with it .... the grass is not always greener on the other side. Voluntary but in this case means... compromise When labour got Into power and had a massive review on their finances. The payments where made "In lieu" of tax. They never made a tax payment before this The value of the payments are hidden and only The privy purse and only apply to gains of disposal of assets made after the 90s so even if they sold the lot tomorrow . The govt would get bugger all I worked for coutts where the queen's personal holdings are held. Even with a cursory glance of a few documents these people are stupendously rich Their expensees are covered by the state and they have taxation rights that would have google and Starbucks cream their pants Your are entitle to support them but to say they ONLY cost £1.24 (67 million) is disingenuous Ooh are you allowed to divulge that information? "That the Royal family are multimillionaires? RBS have enough troubles leaki g actually private data all on their own to call the pot black | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it works out we give them like 50p a year each I'm not against the royal family so I don't care " Same here. As far as Harry and Meghan, as far as I can tell, they want to pay their own way in life by working independently so stepping back is a good thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
a sneaky ‘pretend-to-run-way trick to win. Bad eggs! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and the other 75% of the crown estate goes to...... ? The Treasury. £343 million for 2018/2019 profit from the crown estate management of its portfolio The Queen also pays tax on her private income from the Duchy of Lancaster and her private holdings, like her stud farm and other alike businesses and properties I will say no more ! Hey look at me.... I paid tax like everybody else in the land. On property that was given to my family for free. Taxation is an act parliemnt (one she is actually exempt from) why should be treated differently. These tax (payments) are made voluntarily. On a select part of her holdings not all of them. Most of her wealth come from her mother... About (£70 mil) And guess how much inheritance tax she paid. Zilch You said it. She voluntarily chooses to pay tax when she doesn’t need to The two properties she owns were left to her by her father I don’t begrudge them anything and changing history is never going to happen. Live with it .... the grass is not always greener on the other side. Voluntary but in this case means... compromise When labour got Into power and had a massive review on their finances. The payments where made "In lieu" of tax. They never made a tax payment before this The value of the payments are hidden and only The privy purse and only apply to gains of disposal of assets made after the 90s so even if they sold the lot tomorrow . The govt would get bugger all I worked for coutts where the queen's personal holdings are held. Even with a cursory glance of a few documents these people are stupendously rich Their expensees are covered by the state and they have taxation rights that would have google and Starbucks cream their pants Your are entitle to support them but to say they ONLY cost £1.24 (67 million) is disingenuous" Seriously if you did work for Coutts I'd be messaging admin and asking for this to be deleted and hiding my profile. It never fails to amaze me what people disclose on a swingers forum where the tabloids are known to sniff around | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Every country has a past and a bad history, ours is no different. Do you really think if the crown estate and her public holdings we sold off the British public would see a penny if it .... of course they wouldn’t So continuing to profit from slavery and drug sales is ok because they're royalty? Where are you getting your "facts" from? Education. Bwahahahahahahahaha Why do you laugh at education? What's wrong with you? What's wrong with me? I've just bust a rib...... I've sent you some links. When you've read them all please feel free to discuss it further like an adult, if you wish. Ta. I'll educate myself further later. "Excellent. When you read the articles, bear in mind the following example. If a person robs another person, and uses that money to buy a car which they then use as a taxi. The money they earn in that taxi is profiting from the proceeds of a crime. If they then retire and give the car to their adult child who continues to use it to earn money, that person is still profiting from the proceeds of a crime. At what stage do you think this situation is no longer a crime? At what stage do you think that it would be morally reprehensible to knowingly continue to profit from the proceeds of a crime? Yes, many wealthy families and royals from other countries prosper in this way, but it doesn't make it right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We say sack them take there titles off em send them packing and get rid of his uknoassport while you are at it " Taking his passport from him is probably going to be counter productive if you want to send him packing though? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We say sack them take there titles off em send them packing and get rid of his uknoassport while you are at it Taking his passport from him is probably going to be counter productive if you want to send him packing though?" D’oh! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem with today's world is that everyone believes they have the right to express an opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially that opinion can be roundly ignored and be made fun of particularly if its demonstrably nonsense! Plaguirised. But applies to some the nonsense statements on here!" Plagiarised? What is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes they are rich. We all know that As per the accounts published we are also fully aware of what she receives from the government from land that the crown owns and the royalty have owned for hundreds of years, it its there in black and white for all to see. As for what you disclosed, you’ve just breached basic confidentiality ! " Some people don't seen to have understanding of data protection ... the accounts published (sic) If it publicly held information it is not afforded data protection how can it be. It like mcdonald's sayingg you can't look at are (publicly) listed finances. Which shows we make millions I'm more than happy to list my cv. Which includes the MOD which had me sign an oath to die if necessary for this family. If you all want to support them that fine. I choose not to | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Drug sales? Slavery? Probably. At the time rich landowners owned slaves. Other countries' resources, possibly at the time the whole of Europe spent time fighting between themselves cos they were greedy fuckers and believed they were entitled to be royal head of that state (and when Kings actually went to war). The same happened in this country. That's my surmising... Your turn. Never heard of the Opium Wars with China??????? "Yes but knew nothing of them. Now I know something, such as first opium war 1839. Did the monarch rule parliament at this time? Very succinct answer no! The monarch had no powers within Parliament during the time of George III. Thanks wiki. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe they should have a right to withdraw themselves from Royal titles but few things they said sound like a fantasy talk to me. What is even mean become financially independent? I honestly can not imagine neither of them gonna go to 9-5 or shift round jobs or work 24/7 for their own business- what kind of job they can do without the security of Royals anyway. That’s what it means to most of us , right? So in basic sentence; They want to have a celebrity/Love Island couple lifestyle with few billion in their bank so the interest can keep them living a life of millionaires without the restriction of the Queen. " Spose she could go back to acting and advertising jeans | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Drug sales? Slavery? Probably. At the time rich landowners owned slaves. Other countries' resources, possibly at the time the whole of Europe spent time fighting between themselves cos they were greedy fuckers and believed they were entitled to be royal head of that state (and when Kings actually went to war). The same happened in this country. That's my surmising... Your turn. Never heard of the Opium Wars with China???????
Yes but knew nothing of them.
Now I know something, such as first opium war 1839. Did the monarch rule parliament at this time? Very succinct answer no! The monarch had no powers within Parliament during the time of George III.
Thanks wiki. "The opium trade was conducted by the British East India Company, operating under Royal Charter. Wikipedia is a bit like education for dummies, it only shows a small vignette of the whole story. A granted Royal Charter means that a significant percentage of the profits went into the royal coffers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes they are rich. We all know that As per the accounts published we are also fully aware of what she receives from the government from land that the crown owns and the royalty have owned for hundreds of years, it its there in black and white for all to see. As for what you disclosed, you’ve just breached basic confidentiality ! Some people don't seen to have understanding of data protection ... the accounts published (sic) If it publicly held information it is not afforded data protection how can it be. It like mcdonald's sayingg you can't look at are (publicly) listed finances. Which shows we make millions I'm more than happy to list my cv. Which includes the MOD which had me sign an oath to die if necessary for this family. If you all want to support them that fine. I choose not to" I’m sure your job at the MOD also had you sign a confidentiality agreement to, which prohibits most from stating they actually work there ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes they are rich. We all know that As per the accounts published we are also fully aware of what she receives from the government from land that the crown owns and the royalty have owned for hundreds of years, it its there in black and white for all to see. As for what you disclosed, you’ve just breached basic confidentiality ! Some people don't seen to have understanding of data protection ... the accounts published (sic) If it publicly held information it is not afforded data protection how can it be. It like mcdonald's sayingg you can't look at are (publicly) listed finances. Which shows we make millions I'm more than happy to list my cv. Which includes the MOD which had me sign an oath to die if necessary for this family. If you all want to support them that fine. I choose not to I’m sure your job at the MOD also had you sign a confidentiality agreement to, which prohibits most from stating they actually work there ! "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 Royals | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes they are rich. We all know that As per the accounts published we are also fully aware of what she receives from the government from land that the crown owns and the royalty have owned for hundreds of years, it its there in black and white for all to see. As for what you disclosed, you’ve just breached basic confidentiality ! Some people don't seen to have understanding of data protection ... the accounts published (sic) If it publicly held information it is not afforded data protection how can it be. It like mcdonald's sayingg you can't look at are (publicly) listed finances. Which shows we make millions I'm more than happy to list my cv. Which includes the MOD which had me sign an oath to die if necessary for this family. If you all want to support them that fine. I choose not to I’m sure your job at the MOD also had you sign a confidentiality agreement to, which prohibits most from stating they actually work there ! " Right after I was issued my Omega watch Bironi tailored suit Walther ppk And 00 status They name is bond... Bond trader. Thats is the most up to date cv role anyway | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Drug sales? Slavery? Probably. At the time rich landowners owned slaves. Other countries' resources, possibly at the time the whole of Europe spent time fighting between themselves cos they were greedy fuckers and believed they were entitled to be royal head of that state (and when Kings actually went to war). The same happened in this country. That's my surmising... Your turn. Never heard of the Opium Wars with China???????
Yes but knew nothing of them.
Now I know something, such as first opium war 1839. Did the monarch rule parliament at this time? Very succinct answer no! The monarch had no powers within Parliament during the time of George III.
Thanks wiki.
The opium trade was conducted by the British East India Company, operating under Royal Charter. Wikipedia is a bit like education for dummies, it only shows a small vignette of the whole story. A granted Royal Charter means that a significant percentage of the profits went into the royal coffers."Wiki isn't the greatest of sources but adequate in what I required, as in time line. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes they are rich. We all know that As per the accounts published we are also fully aware of what she receives from the government from land that the crown owns and the royalty have owned for hundreds of years, it its there in black and white for all to see. As for what you disclosed, you’ve just breached basic confidentiality ! Some people don't seen to have understanding of data protection ... the accounts published (sic) If it publicly held information it is not afforded data protection how can it be. It like mcdonald's sayingg you can't look at are (publicly) listed finances. Which shows we make millions I'm more than happy to list my cv. Which includes the MOD which had me sign an oath to die if necessary for this family. If you all want to support them that fine. I choose not to I’m sure your job at the MOD also had you sign a confidentiality agreement to, which prohibits most from stating they actually work there ! Right after I was issued my Omega watch Bironi tailored suit Walther ppk And 00 status They name is bond... Bond trader. Thats is the most up to date cv role anyway "No wrong building, that’s them down the road | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes they are rich. We all know that As per the accounts published we are also fully aware of what she receives from the government from land that the crown owns and the royalty have owned for hundreds of years, it its there in black and white for all to see. As for what you disclosed, you’ve just breached basic confidentiality ! Some people don't seen to have understanding of data protection ... the accounts published (sic) If it publicly held information it is not afforded data protection how can it be. It like mcdonald's sayingg you can't look at are (publicly) listed finances. Which shows we make millions I'm more than happy to list my cv. Which includes the MOD which had me sign an oath to die if necessary for this family. If you all want to support them that fine. I choose not to I’m sure your job at the MOD also had you sign a confidentiality agreement to, which prohibits most from stating they actually work there ! " True story. One of the key phrases is "fit a proper". One measure of "fit and proper" is not blabbing to half the world you work there. As BM said ^^^^, the stuff people divulge on here is mind boggling. Mostly in an attempt to be "more knowledgeable" than other people. *Facepalm emoji please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Drug sales? Slavery? Probably. At the time rich landowners owned slaves. Other countries' resources, possibly at the time the whole of Europe spent time fighting between themselves cos they were greedy fuckers and believed they were entitled to be royal head of that state (and when Kings actually went to war). The same happened in this country. That's my surmising... Your turn. Never heard of the Opium Wars with China???????
Yes but knew nothing of them.
Now I know something, such as first opium war 1839. Did the monarch rule parliament at this time? Very succinct answer no! The monarch had no powers within Parliament during the time of George III.
Thanks wiki.
The opium trade was conducted by the British East India Company, operating under Royal Charter. Wikipedia is a bit like education for dummies, it only shows a small vignette of the whole story. A granted Royal Charter means that a significant percentage of the profits went into the royal coffers."British East India company 1600-1874, received royal charter from QEI in 1600. Now wanna explain how the royals are currently profiting? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Drug sales? Slavery? Probably. At the time rich landowners owned slaves. Other countries' resources, possibly at the time the whole of Europe spent time fighting between themselves cos they were greedy fuckers and believed they were entitled to be royal head of that state (and when Kings actually went to war). The same happened in this country. That's my surmising... Your turn. Never heard of the Opium Wars with China???????
Yes but knew nothing of them.
Now I know something, such as first opium war 1839. Did the monarch rule parliament at this time? Very succinct answer no! The monarch had no powers within Parliament during the time of George III.
Thanks wiki.
The opium trade was conducted by the British East India Company, operating under Royal Charter. Wikipedia is a bit like education for dummies, it only shows a small vignette of the whole story. A granted Royal Charter means that a significant percentage of the profits went into the royal coffers.
British East India company 1600-1874, received royal charter from QEI in 1600.
Now wanna explain how the royals are currently profiting?"Of course. I mentioned it in a post above, but I'll repeat it for you. From the profits of slavery, drug trade etc the British Royal Family purchased land, buildings, shares in various commodities - diamonds, gold etc. They still own the vast majority of these and still profit from them. If a person robs another person, and uses that money to buy a car which they then use as a taxi. The money they earn in that taxi is profiting from the proceeds of a crime. If they then retire and give the car to their adult child who continues to use it to earn money, that person is still profiting from the proceeds of a crime. At what stage do you think this situation is no longer a crime? At what stage do you think that it would be morally reprehensible to knowingly continue to profit from the proceeds of a crime? Yes, many wealthy families and royals from other countries prosper in this way, but it doesn't make it right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Drug sales? Slavery? Probably. At the time rich landowners owned slaves. Other countries' resources, possibly at the time the whole of Europe spent time fighting between themselves cos they were greedy fuckers and believed they were entitled to be royal head of that state (and when Kings actually went to war). The same happened in this country. That's my surmising... Your turn. Never heard of the Opium Wars with China???????
Yes but knew nothing of them.
Now I know something, such as first opium war 1839. Did the monarch rule parliament at this time? Very succinct answer no! The monarch had no powers within Parliament during the time of George III.
Thanks wiki.
The opium trade was conducted by the British East India Company, operating under Royal Charter. Wikipedia is a bit like education for dummies, it only shows a small vignette of the whole story. A granted Royal Charter means that a significant percentage of the profits went into the royal coffers.
British East India company 1600-1874, received royal charter from QEI in 1600.
Now wanna explain how the royals are currently profiting?
Of course. I mentioned it in a post above, but I'll repeat it for you. From the profits of slavery, drug trade etc the British Royal Family purchased land, buildings, shares in various commodities - diamonds, gold etc. They still own the vast majority of these and still profit from them. If a person robs another person, and uses that money to buy a car which they then use as a taxi. The money they earn in that taxi is profiting from the proceeds of a crime. If they then retire and give the car to their adult child who continues to use it to earn money, that person is still profiting from the proceeds of a crime. At what stage do you think this situation is no longer a crime? At what stage do you think that it would be morally reprehensible to knowingly continue to profit from the proceeds of a crime? Yes, many wealthy families and royals from other countries prosper in this way, but it doesn't make it right."But does it make it wrong ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Drug sales? Slavery? Probably. At the time rich landowners owned slaves. Other countries' resources, possibly at the time the whole of Europe spent time fighting between themselves cos they were greedy fuckers and believed they were entitled to be royal head of that state (and when Kings actually went to war). The same happened in this country. That's my surmising... Your turn. Never heard of the Opium Wars with China???????
Yes but knew nothing of them.
Now I know something, such as first opium war 1839. Did the monarch rule parliament at this time? Very succinct answer no! The monarch had no powers within Parliament during the time of George III.
Thanks wiki.
The opium trade was conducted by the British East India Company, operating under Royal Charter. Wikipedia is a bit like education for dummies, it only shows a small vignette of the whole story. A granted Royal Charter means that a significant percentage of the profits went into the royal coffers.
British East India company 1600-1874, received royal charter from QEI in 1600.
Now wanna explain how the royals are currently profiting?
Of course. I mentioned it in a post above, but I'll repeat it for you. From the profits of slavery, drug trade etc the British Royal Family purchased land, buildings, shares in various commodities - diamonds, gold etc. They still own the vast majority of these and still profit from them. If a person robs another person, and uses that money to buy a car which they then use as a taxi. The money they earn in that taxi is profiting from the proceeds of a crime. If they then retire and give the car to their adult child who continues to use it to earn money, that person is still profiting from the proceeds of a crime. At what stage do you think this situation is no longer a crime? At what stage do you think that it would be morally reprehensible to knowingly continue to profit from the proceeds of a crime? Yes, many wealthy families and royals from other countries prosper in this way, but it doesn't make it right."Actually, being pedantic, but it wasn't the British Royal family. Scotland had their own king. And what with, from Henry viii, going from Catholicism to Protestant to Catholicism and so on, until an act of Parliament decreeing no Catholic ascension (I think after James II), the current British monarch's relationship to Elizabeth I is as tenuous as me being a cousin to Elizabeth via an ancestor on her non Royal side. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"50 million quid taken from the tax payer including 2 and a half mill to renovate there cottage and then they abscond. Isn't it time we got rid of the whole lot of inbred squalid intellectually bereft freeloaders. How can you be genuflective because of an accident of birth. Outdated defunct undemocratic.Oh and where are the charges that should be brought against dimwit Andy.. given the same circumstances you or i would be clapped in irons." No, definitely not. Otherwise we'd all become French and where would that lead us? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Drug sales? Slavery? Probably. At the time rich landowners owned slaves. Other countries' resources, possibly at the time the whole of Europe spent time fighting between themselves cos they were greedy fuckers and believed they were entitled to be royal head of that state (and when Kings actually went to war). The same happened in this country. That's my surmising... Your turn. Never heard of the Opium Wars with China???????
Yes but knew nothing of them.
Now I know something, such as first opium war 1839. Did the monarch rule parliament at this time? Very succinct answer no! The monarch had no powers within Parliament during the time of George III.
Thanks wiki.
The opium trade was conducted by the British East India Company, operating under Royal Charter. Wikipedia is a bit like education for dummies, it only shows a small vignette of the whole story. A granted Royal Charter means that a significant percentage of the profits went into the royal coffers.
British East India company 1600-1874, received royal charter from QEI in 1600.
Now wanna explain how the royals are currently profiting?
Of course. I mentioned it in a post above, but I'll repeat it for you. From the profits of slavery, drug trade etc the British Royal Family purchased land, buildings, shares in various commodities - diamonds, gold etc. They still own the vast majority of these and still profit from them. If a person robs another person, and uses that money to buy a car which they then use as a taxi. The money they earn in that taxi is profiting from the proceeds of a crime. If they then retire and give the car to their adult child who continues to use it to earn money, that person is still profiting from the proceeds of a crime. At what stage do you think this situation is no longer a crime? At what stage do you think that it would be morally reprehensible to knowingly continue to profit from the proceeds of a crime? Yes, many wealthy families and royals from other countries prosper in this way, but it doesn't make it right.
Actually, being pedantic, but it wasn't the British Royal family. Scotland had their own king. And what with, from Henry viii, going from Catholicism to Protestant to Catholicism and so on, until an act of Parliament decreeing no Catholic ascension (I think after James II), the current British monarch's relationship to Elizabeth I is as tenuous as me being a cousin to Elizabeth via an ancestor on her non Royal side. "Ok, so that's a fairly insignificant and debatable point so I won't dwell on it - what about the rest? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Drug sales? Slavery? Probably. At the time rich landowners owned slaves. Other countries' resources, possibly at the time the whole of Europe spent time fighting between themselves cos they were greedy fuckers and believed they were entitled to be royal head of that state (and when Kings actually went to war). The same happened in this country. That's my surmising... Your turn. Never heard of the Opium Wars with China???????
Yes but knew nothing of them.
Now I know something, such as first opium war 1839. Did the monarch rule parliament at this time? Very succinct answer no! The monarch had no powers within Parliament during the time of George III.
Thanks wiki.
The opium trade was conducted by the British East India Company, operating under Royal Charter. Wikipedia is a bit like education for dummies, it only shows a small vignette of the whole story. A granted Royal Charter means that a significant percentage of the profits went into the royal coffers.
British East India company 1600-1874, received royal charter from QEI in 1600.
Now wanna explain how the royals are currently profiting?
Of course. I mentioned it in a post above, but I'll repeat it for you. From the profits of slavery, drug trade etc the British Royal Family purchased land, buildings, shares in various commodities - diamonds, gold etc. They still own the vast majority of these and still profit from them. If a person robs another person, and uses that money to buy a car which they then use as a taxi. The money they earn in that taxi is profiting from the proceeds of a crime. If they then retire and give the car to their adult child who continues to use it to earn money, that person is still profiting from the proceeds of a crime. At what stage do you think this situation is no longer a crime? At what stage do you think that it would be morally reprehensible to knowingly continue to profit from the proceeds of a crime? Yes, many wealthy families and royals from other countries prosper in this way, but it doesn't make it right.
Actually, being pedantic, but it wasn't the British Royal family. Scotland had their own king. And what with, from Henry viii, going from Catholicism to Protestant to Catholicism and so on, until an act of Parliament decreeing no Catholic ascension (I think after James II), the current British monarch's relationship to Elizabeth I is as tenuous as me being a cousin to Elizabeth via an ancestor on her non Royal side. "Also, it's not relevant that there is little or no familial relationship between Elizabeth 1 and Elizabeth 2. Land titles, holdings, rights and privileges have largely been bequeathed from Royal Household to Royal Household. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Drug sales? Slavery? Probably. At the time rich landowners owned slaves. Other countries' resources, possibly at the time the whole of Europe spent time fighting between themselves cos they were greedy fuckers and believed they were entitled to be royal head of that state (and when Kings actually went to war). The same happened in this country. That's my surmising... Your turn. Never heard of the Opium Wars with China???????
Yes but knew nothing of them.
Now I know something, such as first opium war 1839. Did the monarch rule parliament at this time? Very succinct answer no! The monarch had no powers within Parliament during the time of George III.
Thanks wiki.
The opium trade was conducted by the British East India Company, operating under Royal Charter. Wikipedia is a bit like education for dummies, it only shows a small vignette of the whole story. A granted Royal Charter means that a significant percentage of the profits went into the royal coffers.
British East India company 1600-1874, received royal charter from QEI in 1600.
Now wanna explain how the royals are currently profiting?
Of course. I mentioned it in a post above, but I'll repeat it for you. From the profits of slavery, drug trade etc the British Royal Family purchased land, buildings, shares in various commodities - diamonds, gold etc. They still own the vast majority of these and still profit from them. If a person robs another person, and uses that money to buy a car which they then use as a taxi. The money they earn in that taxi is profiting from the proceeds of a crime. If they then retire and give the car to their adult child who continues to use it to earn money, that person is still profiting from the proceeds of a crime. At what stage do you think this situation is no longer a crime? At what stage do you think that it would be morally reprehensible to knowingly continue to profit from the proceeds of a crime? Yes, many wealthy families and royals from other countries prosper in this way, but it doesn't make it right.
Actually, being pedantic, but it wasn't the British Royal family. Scotland had their own king. And what with, from Henry viii, going from Catholicism to Protestant to Catholicism and so on, until an act of Parliament decreeing no Catholic ascension (I think after James II), the current British monarch's relationship to Elizabeth I is as tenuous as me being a cousin to Elizabeth via an ancestor on her non Royal side.
Also, it's not relevant that there is little or no familial relationship between Elizabeth 1 and Elizabeth 2. Land titles, holdings, rights and privileges have largely been bequeathed from Royal Household to Royal Household. "So one minute your giving example of father to son re profits of crime, then you're agreeing there are tenuous familial ties between the 2 lizzies. You can't have it both ways. Also, there is no evidence of a crime... Or put it this way, put the Queen before a court and a decent solicitor will have her free in no time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That isn't the point 50 p or 500 quid...its the ethical conundrum that cant be justified when so many exist in poverty and deprivation.society should be a meritocracy that first and foremost takes care of those marginalised. Yes I would but better still we get rid and build a whole heap of hospitals with the saved revenue Would you like your 50p refunded but cash or cheque? How will you spend it? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"50 million quid taken from the tax payer including 2 and a half mill to renovate there cottage and then they abscond. Isn't it time we got rid of the whole lot of inbred squalid intellectually bereft freeloaders. How can you be genuflective because of an accident of birth. Outdated defunct undemocratic.Oh and where are the charges that should be brought against dimwit Andy.. given the same circumstances you or i would be clapped in irons. No, definitely not. Otherwise we'd all become French and where would that lead us? " toward greater sophistication | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"50 million quid taken from the tax payer including 2 and a half mill to renovate there cottage and then they abscond. Isn't it time we got rid of the whole lot of inbred squalid intellectually bereft freeloaders. How can you be genuflective because of an accident of birth. Outdated defunct undemocratic.Oh and where are the charges that should be brought against dimwit Andy.. given the same circumstances you or i would be clapped in irons." What a truly sick outlook. Our Royal family is truly wonderful and every citizen of the United Kingdom should be immensely proud of them...as I am. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"50 million quid taken from the tax payer including 2 and a half mill to renovate there cottage and then they abscond. Isn't it time we got rid of the whole lot of inbred squalid intellectually bereft freeloaders. How can you be genuflective because of an accident of birth. Outdated defunct undemocratic.Oh and where are the charges that should be brought against dimwit Andy.. given the same circumstances you or i would be clapped in irons. What a truly sick outlook. Our Royal family is truly wonderful and every citizen of the United Kingdom should be immensely proud of them...as I am. " I'm in different, so don't really care either way. But why should they? I often see this outlook from people with nothing really to back up their opinion or claim. Just that we should just be happy they are there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"50 million quid taken from the tax payer including 2 and a half mill to renovate there cottage and then they abscond. Isn't it time we got rid of the whole lot of inbred squalid intellectually bereft freeloaders. How can you be genuflective because of an accident of birth. Outdated defunct undemocratic.Oh and where are the charges that should be brought against dimwit Andy.. given the same circumstances you or i would be clapped in irons. No, definitely not. Otherwise we'd all become French and where would that lead us? toward greater sophistication" Have you studied French history at all? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"50 million quid taken from the tax payer including 2 and a half mill to renovate there cottage and then they abscond. Isn't it time we got rid of the whole lot of inbred squalid intellectually bereft freeloaders. How can you be genuflective because of an accident of birth. Outdated defunct undemocratic.Oh and where are the charges that should be brought against dimwit Andy.. given the same circumstances you or i would be clapped in irons. What a truly sick outlook. Our Royal family is truly wonderful and every citizen of the United Kingdom should be immensely proud of them...as I am. I'm in different, so don't really care either way. But why should they? I often see this outlook from people with nothing really to back up their opinion or claim. Just that we should just be happy they are there. " Likewise here, indifferent. I like history, and that does include the monarchy, but I'm not proud as subject to the Queen. In fact, if my nan's great x5 uncle had been her ancestor instead of his brother, I'd probably be a Princess (margaret, for example ). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I read somewhere the royal bloodline is actually german " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Royal family bring in so much tourism it won't disappear. The way they've gone about it is very wrong " This is a common misconception the royal household pretty much count everyone that walks past a royal residency in those figures. Relatively few people visit the UK purely because of the royal family, but many of them will take in Buckingham Palace because it’s there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I read somewhere the royal bloodline is actually german "Yup, there was a comedian I cant remember his name, who labelled her the nazi queen | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I read somewhere the royal bloodline is actually german
"The Hanover line | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I read somewhere the royal bloodline is actually german "Has been for a very long time ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I reckon that's about 50p yep off with their heads "£345 million might provide homes for some of the people we have to step around sleeping in doorways. Or free breakfasts in schools for children who havent eaten seei g as mum and dad had to put the heating on instead. Just a few kids innit. But. No. Who's going to miss a few pence in our taxes. Let the royals continue to eat cake. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont mind the royals. My life would probably be the same with or without them They can keep my 50p a year. Chances are I lose more than that down back of the sofa and I'm more bothered about losing that than the royals " But you need to be outraged over something | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Constantly being attacked for simply trying to live their lives is the reason that they're stepping down. Everyone is furious, yet prince Andrew fucks kids and no one cares " That has not been proven in any Court of Law. He also denies it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont mind the royals. My life would probably be the same with or without them They can keep my 50p a year. Chances are I lose more than that down back of the sofa and I'm more bothered about losing that than the royals But you need to be outraged over something" The amount of bountys in the celebration tin was abit high this year | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont mind the royals. My life would probably be the same with or without them " That is quite likely true, mine would also probably not be much different but our nation would be much the poorer without our wonderful Royal Family. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Constantly being attacked for simply trying to live their lives is the reason that they're stepping down. Everyone is furious, yet prince Andrew fucks kids and no one cares That has not been proven in any Court of Law. He also denies it. " No bjt multiple woman have come forward to confirm it with credible evidence including pbotos What's Andrew got... A receipt frorm pizza express | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Royal family bring in so much tourism it won't disappear. The way they've gone about it is very wrong This is a common misconception the royal household pretty much count everyone that walks past a royal residency in those figures. Relatively few people visit the UK purely because of the royal family, but many of them will take in Buckingham Palace because it’s there. " You are ill informed Buckingham Palace is by far the most popular tourist attraction in London, it attracts around 15 million tourists each year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Constantly being attacked for simply trying to live their lives is the reason that they're stepping down. Everyone is furious, yet prince Andrew fucks kids and no one cares That has not been proven in any Court of Law. He also denies it. No bjt multiple woman have come forward to confirm it with credible evidence including pbotos What's Andrew got... A receipt frorm pizza express" So if I and a few other women on here claim you did the same ass Prince Andrew that automatically makes it true then! I could photo shop your head onto another torso then take a photo of that photo and hey presto proof. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually feel very sorry for the Queen right now. Not only has she been made to look silly in her professional capacity by someone close to her. Harry is her grandson and the bond is fading fast and she must be quite hurt by that. She is likely very torn and very sad. She's an old lady but won't get to deal with her family personally in the way she probably wishes she could. " Dont be fooled. I bet ol Liz can still swing a mean left hook | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Constantly being attacked for simply trying to live their lives is the reason that they're stepping down. Everyone is furious, yet prince Andrew fucks kids and no one cares " evidence? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I read somewhere the royal bloodline is actually german
"The present monarchy is. Due to what I mentioned before, about no catholics on the throne. Victoria was last line of Hanovers (German). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I read somewhere the royal bloodline is actually german
Yup, there was a comedian I cant remember his name, who labelled her the nazi queen "I think that might be cos of her mother's line. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Constantly being attacked for simply trying to live their lives is the reason that they're stepping down. Everyone is furious, yet prince Andrew fucks kids and no one cares That has not been proven in any Court of Law. He also denies it. No bjt multiple woman have come forward to confirm it with credible evidence including pbotos What's Andrew got... A receipt frorm pizza express So if I and a few other women on here claim you did the same ass Prince Andrew that automatically makes it true then! I could photo shop your head onto another torso then take a photo of that photo and hey presto proof. " All photoshopped photos can be proven to be geniune or false it's inbeded into the code that makes up the picture. I do know that if I had a personal protection force that keeps a diarised record of all my movements I could give you a better excuse than I was in Milton Keynes for a child's birthday party. Where no member of the public include the child parents who party it was... thought bloody hell that's prince Andrew let me take a photo | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Drug sales? Slavery? Probably. At the time rich landowners owned slaves. Other countries' resources, possibly at the time the whole of Europe spent time fighting between themselves cos they were greedy fuckers and believed they were entitled to be royal head of that state (and when Kings actually went to war). The same happened in this country. That's my surmising... Your turn. Never heard of the Opium Wars with China???????
Yes but knew nothing of them.
Now I know something, such as first opium war 1839. Did the monarch rule parliament at this time? Very succinct answer no! The monarch had no powers within Parliament during the time of George III.
Thanks wiki.
The opium trade was conducted by the British East India Company, operating under Royal Charter. Wikipedia is a bit like education for dummies, it only shows a small vignette of the whole story. A granted Royal Charter means that a significant percentage of the profits went into the royal coffers.
British East India company 1600-1874, received royal charter from QEI in 1600.
Now wanna explain how the royals are currently profiting?
Of course. I mentioned it in a post above, but I'll repeat it for you. From the profits of slavery, drug trade etc the British Royal Family purchased land, buildings, shares in various commodities - diamonds, gold etc. They still own the vast majority of these and still profit from them. If a person robs another person, and uses that money to buy a car which they then use as a taxi. The money they earn in that taxi is profiting from the proceeds of a crime. If they then retire and give the car to their adult child who continues to use it to earn money, that person is still profiting from the proceeds of a crime. At what stage do you think this situation is no longer a crime? At what stage do you think that it would be morally reprehensible to knowingly continue to profit from the proceeds of a crime? Yes, many wealthy families and royals from other countries prosper in this way, but it doesn't make it right.
Actually, being pedantic, but it wasn't the British Royal family. Scotland had their own king. And what with, from Henry viii, going from Catholicism to Protestant to Catholicism and so on, until an act of Parliament decreeing no Catholic ascension (I think after James II), the current British monarch's relationship to Elizabeth I is as tenuous as me being a cousin to Elizabeth via an ancestor on her non Royal side.
Also, it's not relevant that there is little or no familial relationship between Elizabeth 1 and Elizabeth 2. Land titles, holdings, rights and privileges have largely been bequeathed from Royal Household to Royal Household.
So one minute your giving example of father to son re profits of crime, then you're agreeing there are tenuous familial ties between the 2 lizzies. You can't have it both ways.
Also, there is no evidence of a crime... Or put it this way, put the Queen before a court and a decent solicitor will have her free in no time. "Yes, I can have it both ways. The example I gave was just that. An example. The situation would be the same whether it were father and son (which I didn't specify), or one person to another, whether related or not. And no, of course the Queen wouldn't go before a court - that's just ridiculous. I haven't suggested that at all, I'm just continuing my assertation the the Royal's original funding came from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. I'm talking about a moral responsibility to face the fact the monarchy is based on, and funded by those things. So far, you have been unable to refute those assertions. When you look at Buckingham Palace, you might think "Oh, how lovely - all those wealthy Royals make me proud". When I look at Bucking Palace I might think "I wonder how many of those bricks were purchased using the profits from the sales of my ancestors?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont mind the royals. My life would probably be the same with or without them That is quite likely true, mine would also probably not be much different but our nation would be much the poorer without our wonderful Royal Family. " no it wouldnt it would be 375 million quid a year better off. Go ahead and doff your cap at the royal gold embossed royal barge as it sails through london ...while her madge waves indifferently at her genuflective throng . I'm just as proud to be a Republican as you are a monarchist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Constantly being attacked for simply trying to live their lives is the reason that they're stepping down. Everyone is furious, yet prince Andrew fucks kids and no one cares That has not been proven in any Court of Law. He also denies it. No bjt multiple woman have come forward to confirm it with credible evidence including pbotos What's Andrew got... A receipt frorm pizza express So if I and a few other women on here claim you did the same ass Prince Andrew that automatically makes it true then! I could photo shop your head onto another torso then take a photo of that photo and hey presto proof. All photoshopped photos can be proven to be geniune or false it's inbeded into the code that makes up the picture. I do know that if I had a personal protection force that keeps a diarised record of all my movements I could give you a better excuse than I was in Milton Keynes for a child's birthday party. Where no member of the public include the child parents who party it was... thought bloody hell that's prince Andrew let me take a photo" Not if they a photo of a photo which is the one in question for prince Andrew (no original) So the original that was taken on 35mm film as I understand it had embedded code that passed onto the photo of a photo! Can you feed the whole of London with 2 loaves and 5 fish next please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Drug sales? Slavery? Probably. At the time rich landowners owned slaves. Other countries' resources, possibly at the time the whole of Europe spent time fighting between themselves cos they were greedy fuckers and believed they were entitled to be royal head of that state (and when Kings actually went to war). The same happened in this country. That's my surmising... Your turn. Never heard of the Opium Wars with China???????
Yes but knew nothing of them.
Now I know something, such as first opium war 1839. Did the monarch rule parliament at this time? Very succinct answer no! The monarch had no powers within Parliament during the time of George III.
Thanks wiki.
The opium trade was conducted by the British East India Company, operating under Royal Charter. Wikipedia is a bit like education for dummies, it only shows a small vignette of the whole story. A granted Royal Charter means that a significant percentage of the profits went into the royal coffers.
British East India company 1600-1874, received royal charter from QEI in 1600.
Now wanna explain how the royals are currently profiting?
Of course. I mentioned it in a post above, but I'll repeat it for you. From the profits of slavery, drug trade etc the British Royal Family purchased land, buildings, shares in various commodities - diamonds, gold etc. They still own the vast majority of these and still profit from them. If a person robs another person, and uses that money to buy a car which they then use as a taxi. The money they earn in that taxi is profiting from the proceeds of a crime. If they then retire and give the car to their adult child who continues to use it to earn money, that person is still profiting from the proceeds of a crime. At what stage do you think this situation is no longer a crime? At what stage do you think that it would be morally reprehensible to knowingly continue to profit from the proceeds of a crime? Yes, many wealthy families and royals from other countries prosper in this way, but it doesn't make it right.
Actually, being pedantic, but it wasn't the British Royal family. Scotland had their own king. And what with, from Henry viii, going from Catholicism to Protestant to Catholicism and so on, until an act of Parliament decreeing no Catholic ascension (I think after James II), the current British monarch's relationship to Elizabeth I is as tenuous as me being a cousin to Elizabeth via an ancestor on her non Royal side.
Also, it's not relevant that there is little or no familial relationship between Elizabeth 1 and Elizabeth 2. Land titles, holdings, rights and privileges have largely been bequeathed from Royal Household to Royal Household.
So one minute your giving example of father to son re profits of crime, then you're agreeing there are tenuous familial ties between the 2 lizzies. You can't have it both ways.
Also, there is no evidence of a crime... Or put it this way, put the Queen before a court and a decent solicitor will have her free in no time.
Yes, I can have it both ways. The example I gave was just that. An example. The situation would be the same whether it were father and son (which I didn't specify), or one person to another, whether related or not. And no, of course the Queen wouldn't go before a court - that's just ridiculous. I haven't suggested that at all, I'm just continuing my assertation the the Royal's original funding came from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. I'm talking about a moral responsibility to face the fact the monarchy is based on, and funded by those things. So far, you have been unable to refute those assertions. When you look at Buckingham Palace, you might think "Oh, how lovely - all those wealthy Royals make me proud". When I look at Bucking Palace I might think "I wonder how many of those bricks were purchased using the profits from the sales of my ancestors?""Your original assertion may or may not be correct but you are also asserting the present monarchy continues to profit. The second assertion is much more tenuous than the first. You have yet to convince me. I know through history that the monarchy has "r@ped" THIS country of its assets, so to speak, when they ran the country, via taxes to pay for wars and buy luxuries (such as a certain Prince Regent). The monarchy has even been in debt I believe. Oh, and as for being proud... Already stated my viewpoint. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Constantly being attacked for simply trying to live their lives is the reason that they're stepping down. Everyone is furious, yet prince Andrew fucks kids and no one cares That has not been proven in any Court of Law. He also denies it. No bjt multiple woman have come forward to confirm it with credible evidence including pbotos What's Andrew got... A receipt frorm pizza express So if I and a few other women on here claim you did the same ass Prince Andrew that automatically makes it true then! I could photo shop your head onto another torso then take a photo of that photo and hey presto proof. All photoshopped photos can be proven to be geniune or false it's inbeded into the code that makes up the picture. I do know that if I had a personal protection force that keeps a diarised record of all my movements I could give you a better excuse than I was in Milton Keynes for a child's birthday party. Where no member of the public include the child parents who party it was... thought bloody hell that's prince Andrew let me take a photo Not if they a photo of a photo which is the one in question for prince Andrew (no original) So the original that was taken on 35mm film as I understand it had embedded code that passed onto the photo of a photo! Can you feed the whole of London with 2 loaves and 5 fish next please. " Your arfument conveniently ommits the security protection force and their records of his whereabouts with them. If he went to pizza express there would be report. So he should show it to support his case. Your explanation about the photo is not clear? If you like to have another go and refrain from personal insults I'm open to hearing what you have to say. I dont share your opinion it is OK to disagree and I'm open to new information | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" For approximately a can of Coca Cola and a mars bar a year, she and her direct family (who are mostly funded by a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) she can have my £1.24 a year Would you rather the Royals had your £1.24, or somebody suffering from a painful and terminal illness? The bulk of the UK Royal's original funds come from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. Drug sales? Slavery? Probably. At the time rich landowners owned slaves. Other countries' resources, possibly at the time the whole of Europe spent time fighting between themselves cos they were greedy fuckers and believed they were entitled to be royal head of that state (and when Kings actually went to war). The same happened in this country. That's my surmising... Your turn. Never heard of the Opium Wars with China??????? Yes but knew nothing of them. Now I know something, such as first opium war 1839. Did the monarch rule parliament at this time? Very succinct answer no! The monarch had no powers within Parliament during the time of George III. Thanks wiki. The opium trade was conducted by the British East India Company, operating under Royal Charter. Wikipedia is a bit like education for dummies, it only shows a small vignette of the whole story. A granted Royal Charter means that a significant percentage of the profits went into the royal coffers. British East India company 1600-1874, received royal charter from QEI in 1600. Now wanna explain how the royals are currently profiting? Of course. I mentioned it in a post above, but I'll repeat it for you. From the profits of slavery, drug trade etc the British Royal Family purchased land, buildings, shares in various commodities - diamonds, gold etc. They still own the vast majority of these and still profit from them. If a person robs another person, and uses that money to buy a car which they then use as a taxi. The money they earn in that taxi is profiting from the proceeds of a crime. If they then retire and give the car to their adult child who continues to use it to earn money, that person is still profiting from the proceeds of a crime. At what stage do you think this situation is no longer a crime? At what stage do you think that it would be morally reprehensible to knowingly continue to profit from the proceeds of a crime? Yes, many wealthy families and royals from other countries prosper in this way, but it doesn't make it right. Actually, being pedantic, but it wasn't the British Royal family. Scotland had their own king. And what with, from Henry viii, going from Catholicism to Protestant to Catholicism and so on, until an act of Parliament decreeing no Catholic ascension (I think after James II), the current British monarch's relationship to Elizabeth I is as tenuous as me being a cousin to Elizabeth via an ancestor on her non Royal side. Also, it's not relevant that there is little or no familial relationship between Elizabeth 1 and Elizabeth 2. Land titles, holdings, rights and privileges have largely been bequeathed from Royal Household to Royal Household. So one minute your giving example of father to son re profits of crime, then you're agreeing there are tenuous familial ties between the 2 lizzies. You can't have it both ways. Also, there is no evidence of a crime... Or put it this way, put the Queen before a court and a decent solicitor will have her free in no time. Yes, I can have it both ways. The example I gave was just that. An example. The situation would be the same whether it were father and son (which I didn't specify), or one person to another, whether related or not. And no, of course the Queen wouldn't go before a court - that's just ridiculous. I haven't suggested that at all, I'm just continuing my assertation the the Royal's original funding came from the r*pe of other country's resources, slavery and drug sales. I'm talking about a moral responsibility to face the fact the monarchy is based on, and funded by those things. So far, you have been unable to refute those assertions. When you look at Buckingham Palace, you might think "Oh, how lovely - all those wealthy Royals make me proud". When I look at Bucking Palace I might think "I wonder how many of those bricks were purchased using the profits from the sales of my ancestors?"" Your original assertion may or may not be correct but you are also asserting the present monarchy continues to profit. The second assertion is much more tenuous than the first. You have yet to convince me. I know through history that the monarchy has "r@ped" THIS country of its assets, so to speak, when they ran the country, via taxes to pay for wars and buy luxuries (such as a certain Prince Regent). The monarchy has even been in debt I believe. Oh, and as for being proud... Already stated my viewpoint. " Ok, I really don't think you know what the definition of "profit" is. Profit - noun -"a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something." I'll try and make this simple. If something is purchased using funds gleaned from the sale of slaves, be it land, gold bullion, diamonds etc, whoever subsequently owns those items and makes a financial gain from them, is profiting from slave trading. It doesn't matter who first bought them or who they were given to, the current possessor of them has culpability. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
