Would you call your new baby boy 'Louis'?

Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2006
Posts
4,312
It's funny how they essentially live off the state and have 3 children and potential for more.

Yet the state has said no more benefits for 3rd or more children.

One rule for one and another rule for another. Royals essentially stole their power.

It's about time the state stopped funding them. How much is the upkeep of their estate too? it's ridiculous the amount of land they have that we essentially pay to maintain.

As for tourism. I don't know anyone who comes here because we have a royal family. Sure they will visit the palace, etc, but they would visit it anyway without a royal family, in fact without one more would come as you would be allowed inside.

You have no concept on the Royals finances at all do you, nor who owns the 'Estates' that you mention. I suggest you go research it before spouting so much rubbish :p
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,910
Location
Northern England
Debatable...

Quality burn. Saw the post and thought "Zing!". Saw the poster. Made it even better.

Seems an odd name for a royal imo

Really? France had 19 of them.

Also I'm guessing he's named after Louis Mountbatten who had a very close relationship with Prince Charles (so much so that I believe Charles referred to him as an honorary grandfather and vice versa).
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
You have no concept on the Royals finances at all do you, nor who owns the 'Estates' that you mention. I suggest you go research it before spouting so much rubbish :p

oh yeah they own them. as they did steal them way back when.

but we pay for their maintenance as well as all their salaries, etc.

i know full well how their wealth works. they rent said stolen land to the uk government who then rents it out for a profit, etc.

so it's a good deal for the government. however the land was taken by force. if someone did that today their would be an out cry.

it's about time they had it all taken away.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2006
Posts
4,312
We do not pay for the maintenance of them at all, nor do we pay their salaries. They are paid from the Sovereign grant which is paid out from the profits of the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate also pays for the maintenance of the buildings such as Buckingham Palace and other popular estates I think you mean. They do not pay for private owned ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family

Don't know enough about if/how they stole their land so I can't give you my opinion on that but I will say that it was probably back in the day when all other countries Royals/leaders were doing the same,do you think they should give back their land too?? :p
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
We do not pay for the maintenance of them at all, nor do we pay their salaries. They are paid from the Sovereign grant which is paid out from the profits of the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate also pays for the maintenance of the buildings such as Buckingham Palace and other popular estates I think you mean. They do not pay for private owned ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family

Don't know enough about if/how they stole their land so I can't give you my opinion on that but I will say that it was probably back in the day when all other countries Royals/leaders were doing the same,do you think they should give back their land too?? :p

it should be slowly divided through years of inheritance taxation to the estate. division of wealth.

it's not fair they get all that money just because their great great great great great great great grandad stole a lot of land way back when. when others are born with nothing.

their wealth should be divided over time as it is for everyone else.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2006
Posts
4,312
it should be slowly divided through years of inheritance taxation to the estate. division of wealth.

it's not fair they get all that money just because their great great great great great great great grandad stole a lot of land way back when. when others are born with nothing.

their wealth should be divided over time as it is for everyone else.


So do you think that anyone else who owns land that their distant ancestors took should also give it back over time? Pretty sure the whole world in some shape or form would be giving something back. Should the current descendants of the Romans give any land they have accrued back too??

Please take that as a friendly question and not trying to cause an argument :). I am genuinely interested in your opinion. I do understand your train of thought, but not too sure why you single the Royal family out over anyone else who has done this in history??
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
So do you think that anyone else who owns land that their distant ancestors took should also give it back over time? Pretty sure the whole world in some shape or form would be giving something back. Should the current descendants of the Romans give any land they have accrued back too??

Please take that as a friendly question and not trying to cause an argument :). I am genuinely interested in your opinion. I do understand your train of thought, but not too sure why you single the Royal family out over anyone else who has done this in history??

it's the fact their wealth is protected and doesn't have to abide by the laws everyone else does.

i don't believe the tourism argument at all. I don't know any Canadian or American that has visited in the past did so solely because we have a royal family neither did it play a major factor in their decision. Most of them don't even know or could care less.

It's not fair with the current austerity measures they never have to even contemplate such things. Which is my my first post said it's funny how the government has put in measures to stop benefits for people with more than 2 children. Yet similar rules will never apply to the royals because of something their ancestor did hundreds of years ago.

They do not warrant special treatment. They should be treated as if they were the same as any other wealthy person in the world.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Mar 2008
Posts
10,078
Location
Stoke area
it's the fact their wealth is protected and doesn't have to abide by the laws everyone else does.

i don't believe the tourism argument at all. I don't know any Canadian or American that has visited in the past did so solely because we have a royal family neither did it play a major factor in their decision. Most of them don't even know or could care less.

It's not fair with the current austerity measures they never have to even contemplate such things. Which is my my first post said it's funny how the government has put in measures to stop benefits for people with more than 2 children. Yet similar rules will never apply to the royals because of something their ancestor did hundreds of years ago.

They do not warrant special treatment. They should be treated as if they were the same as any other wealthy person in the world.


Nothing like arguing facts by simply saying you don't believe in them! :D

The Royal Family bring in more money than they take, it's that simple.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
14 Apr 2017
Posts
3,511
Location
London
i don't believe the tourism argument at all. I don't know any Canadian or American that has visited in the past did so solely because we have a royal family neither did it play a major factor in their decision. Most of them don't even know or could care less.
.

I don’t have a dog in this hunt, as I could care less about the British Royal Family, although I wish them no harm.
With my heritage, I still wonder how bad it must have been in 1848, when Louis-Philippe d’Orléans was forced to abdicate the throne of France, and died in Surrey, England, in 1850, quelle honte!
I digress, while I agree that American and Canadian tourists didn’t come to London SOLELY because of the Royal Family, when I was a Black Cab driver I’d say that three out of five jobs I picked up outside Buck House after the Changing of the Guard were American tourists, they loved all that pomp and stuff.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2011
Posts
10,821
Location
Darlington
I like the name Louis. I think it's much better than traditional royal names which always seem to be echoing former royals from the past. Louis has a more contemporary feel to it and reflects a more modern feel to this latest generation of the royal family.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Nov 2003
Posts
36,743
Location
Southampton, UK
I like the name Louis. I think it's much better than traditional royal names which always seem to be echoing former royals from the past. Louis has a more contemporary feel to it and reflects a more modern feel to this latest generation of the royal family.

I agree with all of that. Not sure I'd call my kid Louis but it's not a bad choice.
 
Back
Top Bottom