The Royals

[Cryogenic]

Before I begin, let me make clear that I am as patriotic as the the next person, though I do feel maybe like the hit movie Gladiator starring Russell Crowe, that we should now consider becoming a republic on the following points:

1. Anyone can join the Royal Family, there does not seem to be an application process or criteria to become something akin to a 'living God'?

2. Princess Diana (god bless her soul) was a lovely lady in public, but enjoyed many relationships whilst still married to the future heir - should she simply not have resigned her post?

3. Does all the land that I live on belong to the queen in my country, if so, is this the same as Saudia Arabia? Do we need reform so families can own and farm their own lands?

4. According to wiki, the RF are self funding through tourism, and have billions in assets. Is it fair a cleaner should subsidise this in tax (no matter how small)?

Apologies if I cause offence to anyone, as I said, I am not unpatriotic, just living in modern times where things are no longer decided by swords, castles, and marching armies.

 

[Cryogenic]

Do people not go to school or learn things any more?

Yes, but people get old and forgetful

 

[Cryogenic]

It’s a shame you feel the need to start by saying you are as patriotic as the next person when you think that we should become a republic. The royal family are not our country and thinking they are an anachronism does not make you unpatriotic.

Thank you, and well put

In anachronistic times, "for Queen and Country" (left-wing), "fur Blood and Honour" (right wing) were clearly popular patriotic war slogans. I see no reason not to go Dutch style with something like:

"For my people, my lands and humanity”

 

[Cryogenic]

Awww man, my one and only claim to be cool or fashionable, gone

Personally, I don't see why they are so revered - yes, way back when it was all ruling Lords, castles, knights on horseback etc etc and your average dung thrower (such as myself) could hardly string together a sentence; I am sure they were the bees knees. But I expect a lot of that came from religion being the backbone, and 'Royals' were seen as beings appointed by God himself.

These days, to me at least, they are no different from champagne swilling footballers, or rich city folk with flash motors and whatnot - albeit, ones that give to charity. I add that, as I appreciate that the Royal Family do a lot more for good causes, than the majority of us - myself included. Whether it is forced upon them, so as to keep the unwashed masses quiet, who knows - I'll leave that train of thought to the evil lizard overlord conspiracy theorists

I guess I view fans of the Royals like followers of religion - it's all good so long as you don't go forcing it down other people's necks; I won't judge you if you need some outdated archaic *thing* in your life, but respect that others don't.

As for doing away with the Royals - no. I think they bring in a lot of tourism into our country, and for that alone, they should be left to do what they do.

Well put, we are in an age where we can no longer be called commoners or peasants. We are all equal in te eyes of the lord (if he/she exists), the monarchy do actually have parliamentary influence. I did not say get rid, more privatise.

 

[Cryogenic]

Every country needs someone with a posh house to impress the diplomats, the queen has long standing diplomatic connections and that's worth more than i think some give her credit for.

The americans just have trump, i think we have the better thing going.

Something wrong with the decor in 10 Downing Street? If not, why not purpose build a new building as a one off?

 

[Cryogenic]

I would have a very hard time bowing to any of them if I met them in person. None of them are better than any of us.

I love my country, my land and it’s people, but I too would find it difficult to bow just because someone is wealthier than me, or married into a wealthy family,

 

[Cryogenic]

You mean the 2.4 million spent to maintain valuable properties? (they don't just replace things like structural timbers because someone is moving in and they don't like the old wood).

The work that the crown estate paid for on those properties is basically the equivalent to what your council would pay if work was needed on properties it owned and was about to be let out- the only difference being that because the properties in question were listed and fairly high end they had to do the work in a style that matched, rather than getting Bob's Builders in to use stuff from Wickes and Homebase.

From what I've read it sounded like the property was in serious need of refurbishment/structural work before anyone could use it again, and they took the chance to also restore them to something closer to the original style at the same time as modernising the utilities.
Which means that the 2.4 million would have been spent regardless of who was going to use the property, as it's either spend the money to keep it in good shape or let it fall down/get worse and cost more to fix up in the future (which is part of the reason things like various of the palaces and the HOP are costing so much*).

From my understanding the couple paid for any works above that standard restoration themselves, which is basically what you would get if someone was about to move into any luxury apartments or properties as a long term rental and the property was in the process of major works and the landlord was open to the customisation.


*IIRC the government has dithered over the cost of repairs and routine maintainance to the houses of parliament for so long that the damage has got considerably worse as things like leaks that at one point could have been fixed with just a new roof section have caused damage to the underlying structure, or things like damaged plasterwork has allowed water ingress resulting in additional damage.

Wolf mate, if someone said to you - due to the cost of inflation and new Royal members, we need to put your tax up by 3% to cover the repairs on private crown properties. What would your first instinct be - yes of course? If that's the case, then go right ahead and ask your boss for a rise, but why drag everyone else into this farce?

Would it not be better for it to be an optional payment. i.e. royalists pay more tax? This would be a fairer system as they can obviously afford it. Those opted out could chose to contribute to a local community project of their choice, or to support their own family.

 

[Cryogenic]

A member of the the royal family is not seen as being akin to a living god, so that point is invalid.

My question: Would you bow to a Royal member who joined 1 hour ago? If not, why not?

Head of state = current elected prime minister & standard expenses for the elected duty

Not disputing the income side.

"I think that retaining some aspects of our own cultural heritage matters."

This has to be a wind up, whilst previous generations lived in castles marrying into each others families with court jesters to keep them entertained. Your/my lineage was likely ploughing the field and living in a straw hut when men on horseback came to collect 'land tax' in coins. Not sure which part you want to remember about this exactly other than the threat of the gallows?

 

[Cryogenic]

This should be in Speakers corner IMO.

I like the Royals, but I sense that's because I see the value they bring to the UK and how the Crown Estates work. For relevance here's the Wiki on it. If you read it you'll see that the Crown Estates are a net PRODUCER of income for the treasury with around 25% of it being given back as The Civil List. Even the Buck palace renovations have been funded buy an increase in the Civil List, derived from income from the Crown Estates. They don't 'take taxpayers money' at all.

Agreed about SC.

 

[Cryogenic]

Mt first instinct was to check the data of the sweeping generalisation. You don't specify which tax, but for the purposes of simplicity I'll assume that you're referring to income tax. In which case, a 3% increase to income tax would raise around £18bn.

Just to put things into perspective rather than have dramatisation for effect. I'm sure you can do the maths and calculate what increase in tax is needed to make your example more accurate.

But while I'm here, is there anything else you'd like to be able to opt out of paying tax for?

Also, if there are indeed benefits to the royal family, how do we opt you out of those? Perhaps increase your income tax to compensate?

Devil's advocate.

According to other sources in this thread, it seems we pay no income tax at all. Why then is the 50p a day per person bandied about by the media.

In terms of opt outs - you can opt out of your 2nd pension and the deduction disappears from your payslip. You can opt-in to salary sacrifice for childcare vouchers and the amount appears on the payslip. Why not introduce the RST (Royal Super Tax) in addition to the NI contributions which appears on the payslip and make it optional where opt-outs are concerned. Just a thought since you asked.

 

[Cryogenic]

[QUOTE="One thing that *does* bother me - whether or not you like the Queen - is forcing our MPs to swear an oath of allegiance to the King/Queen. To my mind, that is wrong. Utterly wrong. They should swear to serve the people honestly and with compassion, not swear an oath to the Queen.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. How about this for starters - "For nationhood and our people's generation, I do solemnly swear not only to uphold the rule of law, but to protect our lands far and near, and to carry out this duty as honourably as possibly to the best of my abilities, for the people and by the people"

 

[Cryogenic]

You can't opt out of the State Second Pension (S2P) since 2016.

Your other point is just plain ridiculous. Salary sacrifice for childcare vouchers means that you're buying something pre-tax - childcare vouchers. If your RST was introduced and you decided to opt out, how would the benefits of the Royal Family (the financial ones of which you've accepted earlier in the thread) be deducted from you?

Apologies, S2P was indeed a historical initiative but was merely to illustrate the point that things can be added and removed from the payslip via opt-ins/outs i.e. they are not fixed in stone. The same is true of salary sacrifice, though its intended purpose is pre-tax based, again, my point (apologies if it was not made clear) was that is can be added and removed from month to month from the payslip without too much effort from the payroll dept.

Regarding the benefits of opt-in, it may surprise you to learn this, but the tax system is not equal, it is designed to give the poor a leg up, and to tax the richest at a higher rate to spread the wealth around (redistribution) and changes ratios depending on who is in power, therefore if 30% opted into a Royal Super Tax, it would clearly benefit the remainder 70% too who chose to support their parents instead for example. This is a win win situation, as there is no point adding much more to those who already have hundreds of billions in assets unless you want to give your hard earned money away while you live frugally? It simply does not bear sense. Bill/Melinda Gates have already worked that one out, they also do not hunt for fun which is another plus point.

Similarly, I pay a unidirectional tax called council tax, but some people live in low crime neighbourhoods, and do not really benefit from the police, and some people do not have children but pay for other children's schools.

 

[Cryogenic]

You're missing the point though. 'Things can be added to the payslip without too much effort' but you're ignoring the other side of the equation in that there's a tangible benefit being accrued elsewhere - pension, childcare vouchers or whatever is relevant.



I'll ignore your sarcastic comment about being surprised about the tax system after I just reminded and corrected you about how part of it works.

You then go on to argue about how some taxes should be optional and how only the wealthy would be likely to support the royals through your tax. Then mumble something random about hunting.

Bur then you name council tax and unidirectional, and how it is paid irrespective of the benefits that the payers receive, using the example of how people in low crime neighbourhoods don't benefit from the police (questionable) and how others subsidise those with children.

Using your argument, can people opt out of paying for police in high crime areas, and for education for other people's kids if they don't have any of their own?

Please try to make sense of what you're proposing.

Ok, to keep it simple, keep paying and maintain the status quo. What other option is there? Just don’t ask me to bow courtesy to anyone, or to fight for queen and country, just country, and for my fellow countrymen. They don’t own me.

 

[Cryogenic]

Are you actually being asked to bow or courtesy (good gender equality here) or fight for queen and country, or are you arguing on behalf of somebody else? Are you due to meet a member of the royal family soon, or go into combat?

Obviously not, but if I was your neighbour and kept showing off in my flash car. You would no doubt be ok with this too. And if I wore a flash suit, would you step aside for me every day? If so, hello neighbour

Good to have people under the thumb sometimes, would’t you say? After all money talks. Never mind the person behind it.. there is also a difference between earned and unearned wealth. Which do you respect more?

 

[Cryogenic]

The problem is in your head, and nowhere else.

If you're my neighbour and have a great car, then of course I expect to see it every day. If you have a flash suit then you have a flash suit - I'll hold the door open if I'm there first and if not then expect the same courtesy from you.

You're then going on to another ramble - last time it was something about hunting that you've ignored since. Are you trying to make the same or a different point? And another question back at you - why are you bothered about the source of wealth - earned or unearned? Why does one demand greater respect than another, and why does either? Isn't it more about the person than about what they have or the origins of what they have? How would you be judged through this lens, and your parents and your children?

What exactly is your problem? You're not articulating it terribly well but there's a risk of a certain direction...

Ok, fair enough.

 

[Cryogenic]

If it was appropriate protocol for the particular situation, yes. My question: Why are you asking a question irrelevant to the text you're quoting? Bowing to someone does not mean that you see them as a living god. Far from it. The custom for that, at least in my cultural heritage, is at least kneeling on both knees and possibly completely prostate on your belly. Bowing is a far lesser thing, absolutely not for a "living god". Even in the days when people really believed that the monarch ruled by divine right and was the chosen of god, the most formal protocol was to go to one knee because the monarch was not a god. There are some cultures in which the ruler was regarded as a living god, but this was never one of them.



One person can't do 2 jobs. If you made the PM head of state you would have to have someone else in another position to do some of the work the PM currently does plus some additional staff. You would not be reducing even the cost of security because you'd still have 2 people. In addition, there are additional costs for the head of state that would be completely unaffected by who did the job. Building maintainence, grounds maintainence, staffing costs, travel costs, diplomatic function costs. The cost savings of making the PM head of state would be at best minimal even if you were to steal the Queen's personal possessions (which you would have to do in order to avoid a huge increase in costs).



Both our lineages were more likely living in wattle and daub roundhouses (which are a quite sophisticated and very efficient method of construction in the circumstances that existed in the past), not "a straw hut". When the harvests were OK, their lives would have been OK for the time. The gap between them and the wealthy elite wasn't hugely different to how it is today. I am a peasant. The level of technology has changed and that has vastly improved everyone's lives, but I have to work more than my medieval peasant ancestors did to survive.

Perhaps you'd like to think of not being enslaved or murdered by whatever raiders attacked or by the followers of whoever was ruthless enough to have seized power in your locality? That usually didn't happen because the authorities enforced a reasonable degree of peace. Without that, it would have happened routinely.

Besides, "retaining some aspects of our own cultural heritage" does not mean "considering only the worst aspects of life in the past" or even "replicating all aspects of the past". It's largely ceremonial and symbolic. For example, the state opening of Parliament symbolises parliament's independence from the crown. That's an important part of this country's heritage. It's worth keeping.

An interesting and intelligent assessment.

In the modern world, the police and the army now protect us and peace and civil disobedience is now maintained but not by the monarchy. As far as customs go, Spanish bull running is still in - don't you think things should change with time to modernise, after all jailing homosexuals is now banned and this is within the past 100 years?

To refer to yourself as a peasant is simply degrading and humiliating, I'm sure your parents would be absolutely livid if they heard this. You are a human being living in the first world, and equal to anyone of my other countrymen and women, try to have some respect for yourself man. There is no reason why you cannot send your children to a private school or live in a nice house - it would certainly be more comfortable than a wattle and daub roundhouse especially with the supersize mortgages they are offering these days. If you bought a London terrace many years ago, you would be worth close to a million today. This is enough to buy your own castle in Scotland. You would then be a Scottish aristocrat, and eligible to mix in Royal circles with other wealthy land owning individuals.

 

[Cryogenic]

If you have a time machine I can use, I will go back in time and buy a London terrace many years ago. Preferably in Kensington. You can rent out a 2 bed terrace for £100K a year there. Without that time machine, how do you propose I do it?]

The fact is anyone can inherit (do your parents not live in a house of their own?), and anyone can become wealthy. The ex-owner of this forum for one, so if you think a 'peasant' cannot also achieve something in business, you are wrong, and you would not need a time machine for this, just hard work and dedication Perhaps, I am more enlightened than you on this occasion

 

[Cryogenic]

No, because you are blaming peasants for being peasants. That is the inevitable flip side of your claim that that there is no reason for a person to not make themselves rich - if there is no reason for a person to not be rich, it's entirely their own fault if they're not rich. You're peddling the "lazy peasant" idea. Your claim that anyone can become wealthy is just more of the same. It's so obviously not true that it's not even laughable.

Your claim that anyone can inherit is another of those technically true but wildly misleading statements. Anyone can inherit, but that does not mean they will. A person might not inherit anything. A person might inherit nothing of any material value. In order to inherit wealth, a person must be favoured by a wealthy person who dies. That's not true for everyone. Not everyone, for example, has a dead relative who owned a house and assigned it to them in their will.

Also, your initial suggestion was buying a terrace in London in the past. That would, of course, need a time machine. It would also need enough spare money to make that purchase, which is something else that a modern day peasant wouldn't have. But the time machine would, I think, be an even bigger problem to overcome.

It's true that a tiny, tiny, vanishingly miniscule minority of people can become rich through a combination of luck, someone else backing them, an idea that's just right for the time and place, a lot of skill and a lot of work. Your claim that everyone can do so, that there is no reason to not do so, is simply wrong. You might as well claim that everyone can become a Premier league football player and that there's no reason for anyone to not do so (so anyone who doesn't become a Premier league football player is a lazy failure who deserves to fail). If you're making up such wildly implausible claims, why stop there? Everyone can become a wizard! Everyone can become a dragon! Everyone can become a flying unicorn!

To try and fail, is better than not trying at all was my point but success can be virtually guaranteed though good life choices. What if you and the wife both worked (dual income), this would give you quite a bit of spending/investment power. What if you then bought a car park etc. for residual income, or bought and sold on eBay. You could work your way up step by step, incrementally using market analysts, market indicators and advisors such as experienced business bank managers to setup multiple mini side businesses. You may still fail but be less likely to do so. Once you acquire enough holdings over a long period of time, you could buy cheapish farmland and become a respectable ‘landowner’. Don’t be so pessimistic, or hard on yourself!

 

[Cryogenic]

You're still doing it. Maybe you're a believer, despite how wildly implausible it is, but you're still just blaming peasants for being peasants. Including me, obviously. So you're being a lot harder on me than I am, since you're claiming that there is no reason for me not to be rich because you're claiming there's no reason for anyone to not be rich. You must think that I am monumentally lazy and stupid. Fortunately, that doesn't bother me because I think you're just fooling yourself for ideological purposes and thus your opinion on the matter is too unrealistic to care about.

Are you even aware that the great majority of people are not rich? If so, how do you reconcile that with your stated belief that there is no reason for anyone to not be rich?

The truth is my dear Angilion is that you have been brainwashed into thinking you are a peasant (whatever that is). I started off with £0.50p in my back pocket 2 years ago, had no house, or car. I used this to list something for a friend on eBay and still had 15p to spare, he gave me commission after it sold. I sold a few more things for friends and after lots of job rejections, I got a lowly paid job. In under 2 years, I am now worth £500k. I am not a clever man, just a hard worker. I am on target to hit £1 million+ in 3yr-4yrs, possibly less. Am I one of the lucky ones, not really, my friends have done the same. So if you are still looking up to the royals, I’m afraid you only have yourself to blame.

The below are my friends for reference - are they all completely stupid?

Friend 1: Qualified as a gas engineer - did 7-10 services a day at £40 each 7 days a week
2 Years later: Has 9 houses

Friend 2: Took a 1.5k loan from a friend to buy a dog walking business, walks 7-10 dogs a day at £10 per hour making £400-500/day 7 days a week
2 years later: Bought grade II house with 1 acre land and owns a peregrin falcon with staff walking the dogs

Friend 3: Qualified in IT, did contracting £150-300/hour for the government/tech companies
2 years later: Just bought a house for 700k

Friend 4: Qualified as a trainee solicitor and went into land securities
2 years later: Bought a house for 1 million in an area with private security

Friend 5: Qualified as a lawyer, had a job for 6 months. Took a loan from a bank and bought a dilapidated dental practice. Now hires his own dentists
2 years later: Has 3 dental practices and drives a range rover with 12-15k income per month

Friend 6: Practice Manager - bought a bankrupt nursing home with her husband with a business mortgage.
2 years later: Turning over 450k

Friend 7: Nursery assistant - started her own nursery.
2 Years later: Has two sites turning over 250k

Friend 8: Qualified as a social worker - worked for a company for 8 months, started own foster care service
2 Years later: turning over 250k

Friend 9: Just started work as a locum 5-7 days a week
2 years later: has 5 student flats

Friend 10: Qualified in law, no job, started accident claim firm
2 years later: Turns over 500k

Friend 11: Business he was employed in selling cables went bankrupt, he asked if he could buy the cable machine with a loan from his father. Marketed himself to local companies and organisations
2 years later: Turns over 200k

Friend 12: Took a loan from a bank to buy run-down warehouse, partitioned it and turned into offices
2 years later: makes 30k a month

Friend 13: Setup an English language school for international foreign students in a rented office
2 years later: makes 10k a month

Friend 14: Hand to mouth clothing worker made redundant by bankrupt business, asked if he could rent a small section of the warehouse with his meagre £500 life savings, worked 6 days to make his own clothes and sold to local businesses on day 7
2 years later: makes 100k a year

Friend 15: Started collecting scrap metal
2 years later: makes £1,000,000 a year

Friend 16: Qualified as a joiner - started work as an kitchen fitter for a company at £200-400 day depending on the hours worked 7 days a week
2 years later: bought cheap land on a hill, and built an 11 bedroom house (fitted kitchen himself)

Friend 17: Started selling on demand car paint after buying a 50% share in a business by selling his own car and remortgage help from his mother.
2 years later: Makes 7k a month

I have no more friends

The Trick: Most of the above have low paid working husbands/wifes who use their part-time/full-time salary to run the house to keep the bills off the partners backs whilst they create their businesses. Even my wife can make £140/day babysitting two children but she only works to the 12k tax free allowance.

It is not hard my dear Angilion. Even posters here sometime make 100k+ tax free/year from match betting.

I may not make billions like the Royals, but if I had a daughter, I would not say no for her to join this elite group like Meghan and Kate.

 

[Cryogenic]

Are you even aware that the great majority of people are not rich? If so, how do you reconcile that with your stated belief that there is no reason for anyone to not be rich?

Buddy, I just spent an age typing examples of how my 'normal' friends did it in 2 years, mind you they do all live in the North where things are a bit cheaper.

Wealth is what makes the Royals 'appear' different to us. I have come to the conclusion that you do not want to or care to achieve, you seem content at worshipping those above you. If so, fair enough. I will leave you to it.

And for the record, I have no reason to lie about my humble beginnings. If you really want to know how I did it, my father gave me 50p, and said I must venture out on my own (£1 would have been better!). As it happened, my friend wanted to sell his Audi headlights in the garage but didn't know how to list on ebay, he asked if I could do it, he would give me a 30% commission. In two months, I made 12k selling old speakers, sofas, used laptops etc. for my friends. I got a job in a local supermarket as a shelf stacker. I used 10k from my saving plus my salary to get a business mortgage on a commercial property for 60k, I rented the space out, the tenants turned it into a successful restaurant and spent 100k of their own money outfitting it out. This has pushed the value of my property to around 150k. At the same time, I bought a 2 bed house, on a mortgage and put 20k together from long shifts to buy farmland abroad through a friend, thanks to the exchange rate, I nearly doubled my money. The farmland now worth more than I bought it (50k an acre) as the tenants have turned it into a dairy farm. This generates me income and worth.