Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth

[maroonlegions]

Highland clearness's..

 

Brutal aristocracy.. History proves it.. Red tories or otherwise??? 

 

   

Edited November 15, 2021 by maroonlegions

[Savage Vince]

4 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Its the only role she's ever known. She was bon into it. Yes, silver spoon if you like. They know no different. Dinny geez "its a shame" pish! She's never wanted a day in her life nor will her offspring or their offspring etc.

 

Country of sycophants!

 

I didn't see any disrespect on this thread. She's an old woman not wonderwoman! She is at the twilight of her years but lets be honest, he years have been better than most folks. Be sad when she passes but no more so than any other female human being that age.

 

Her position on the other hand...

 

Great post. 

[Longbaws]

Unsure if this includes either the £370million refurb of Buckingham Palace of the wedge that Prince Andrew Griffiths's lawyers will get.

 

* there's ******* foodbanks in this country and politicians vote against free school meals for the hungry children....

Edited November 15, 2021 by Longbaws

[McGlynn The Money]

5 hours ago, jonnothejambo said:

 

I think it is an excellent post from John and you are just being a turd.

 

Thanks.

 

4 hours ago, Sharpie said:

 What have you done in life that is like Johns story worth reading about, or are you too ,modest, or of course that it might just be that safety is your motto in life and be critical in anonymity. As we say in Canada, Eh!

 

If I was being critical in anonymity I would have a lot to say about your use of punctuation.

[Morgan]

1 hour ago, McGlynn The Money said:

 

Thanks.

 

 

If I was being critical in anonymity I would have a lot to say about your use of punctuation.

If I were you, I wouldn’t speak to Bob like that.

[Sharpie]

1 hour ago, Morgan said:

If I were you, I wouldn’t speak to Bob like that.

 Its no problem to me Morgan, we are dealing with a man who has the courage to teach an eighty six year old man about his weakness in punctuation, and is certainly in no danger of any physical action because of geographic differences, plus even as a policeman I had a dislike of dealing with excrement of any type especially his. 

[McGlynn The Money]

13 hours ago, Sharpie said:

 Its no problem to me Morgan, we are dealing with a man who has the courage to teach an eighty six year old man about his weakness in punctuation, and is certainly in no danger of any physical action because of geographic differences, plus even as a policeman I had a dislike of dealing with excrement of any type especially his. 

 

Physical action?

 

[Dirty Deeds]

6 minutes ago, McGlynn The Money said:

 

Physical action?

 

And now it's all about you.

[McGlynn The Money]

3 minutes ago, Dirty Deeds said:

And now it's all about you.

 

That's incorrect.

[i8hibsh]

See the whole 'life of luxury and wealth' argument - it is certainly valid but think of it this way if you may....her entire life is owned.  Her entire days are owned and out of her control.  Everything she does is part of her role.  She can barely do anything she chooses.  She will have no privacy or at least struggle to get any.  

 

I can barely stand speaking to someone for 2 minutes and doing the small talk - she has been doing this everyday for near 70 years.  Constantly in the company of that chosen for her.

 

All the wealth in the world would not want me to have that life.  And she can't do anything with her wealth.  It is not as if she can have a car boot sale or Sotheby's auctions.

[Japan Jambo]

18 hours ago, Longbaws said:

Unsure if this includes either the £370million refurb of Buckingham Palace of the wedge that Prince Andrew Griffiths's lawyers will get.

 

* there's ******* foodbanks in this country and politicians vote against free school meals for the hungry children....

 

I'd imagine we get way, way more than that back in increased tourism and 'soft power' if we are looking at it from a straight economics perspective.

[Ron Burgundy]

30 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

See the whole 'life of luxury and wealth' argument - it is certainly valid but think of it this way if you may....her entire life is owned.  Her entire days are owned and out of her control.  Everything she does is part of her role.  She can barely do anything she chooses.  She will have no privacy or at least struggle to get any.  

 

I can barely stand speaking to someone for 2 minutes and doing the small talk - she has been doing this everyday for near 70 years.  Constantly in the company of that chosen for her.

 

All the wealth in the world would not want me to have that life.  And she can't do anything with her wealth.  It is not as if she can have a car boot sale or Sotheby's auctions.

Agreed.

Sticking that out for that length of time deserves a huge amount of respect IMO.

 

[Longbaws]

1 hour ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

I'd imagine we get way, way more than that back in increased tourism and 'soft power' if we are looking at it from a straight economics perspective.

Surely you agree that someone with a 300 bedroom house doesn't need to be claiming benefits?

 

Soft power doesn't get trials halted either.

 

Yes there is an argument that they bring in money through tourism but so does Dynamic Earth and Camera Obscura. 

[McGlynn The Money]

26 minutes ago, jonnothejambo said:

 

Don't be so disrespectful you utter cretin.

 

Calm down my friend. I'm not the one resorting to childish insults or veiled threats of violence. Surely that is much more disrespectful.

[Sharpie]

2 hours ago, McGlynn The Money said:

 

Physical action?

 

 As I have stated I am from an age I am sure you never lived in. Men were men, and often insult was resolved by an agreement to settle differences by doing so physically, I do regret I sometimes fall back into these days.  I make no secret of whom I am, where I am and what I have been. I have differences of opinion with some on here, but generally respect their views and responses. I however find it difficult to deal with someone who certainly by the present user name is totally new to the web page. Your whole motivation seems to be to disturb, and that I am sure is your right, you have an answer you think for everything that shows your self considered superiority, but sir, with no respect I consider you an anonymous coward, with considerable feelings of low esteem, and take pleasure in insulting, criticising and just being an absolute nuisance. There was a day when I would love to have got the jaicket off with you, but now  get satisfaction from knowing that you no doubt suffer in your loneliness when you realise who and what you are. A parasite. Please excuse any grammatical, or punctuation, I never had the senior years of education that you probably had I was in foreign climes serving my Queen, God Save The Queen. 

[i8hibsh]

21 hours ago, Longbaws said:

Unsure if this includes either the £370million refurb of Buckingham Palace of the wedge that Prince Andrew Griffiths's lawyers will get.

 

* there's ******* foodbanks in this country and politicians vote against free school meals for the hungry children....

 

 

It does not seem to include the income generated by them however.  I want rid of them once the Queen passes on but to suggest it is a one sided transaction is not fair.  They generate far more than they take.

[jamboy1982]

29 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

It does not seem to include the income generated by them however.  I want rid of them once the Queen passes on but to suggest it is a one sided transaction is not fair.  They generate far more than they take.

I’m pretty sure it doesn’t include a lot of other costs. I’m sure I read that it doesn’t include security costs for anything out with the boroughs the palace. So if they travel anywhere within the uk then the security costs are met by the local council. 

[McGlynn The Money]

40 minutes ago, Sharpie said:

 As I have stated I am from an age I am sure you never lived in. Men were men, and often insult was resolved by an agreement to settle differences by doing so physically, I do regret I sometimes fall back into these days.  I make no secret of whom I am, where I am and what I have been. I have differences of opinion with some on here, but generally respect their views and responses. I however find it difficult to deal with someone who certainly by the present user name is totally new to the web page. Your whole motivation seems to be to disturb, and that I am sure is your right, you have an answer you think for everything that shows your self considered superiority, but sir, with no respect I consider you an anonymous coward, with considerable feelings of low esteem, and take pleasure in insulting, criticising and just being an absolute nuisance. There was a day when I would love to have got the jaicket off with you, but now  get satisfaction from knowing that you no doubt suffer in your loneliness when you realise who and what you are. A parasite. Please excuse any grammatical, or punctuation, I never had the senior years of education that you probably had I was in foreign climes serving my Queen, God Save The Queen. 

 

My dear chap, you had a go at me first, involving yourself in a dispute that had nothing to do with you. 

If back in the old days, someone making a remark about your punctuation would instantly make you want to go boxing with them that would suggest that you were not of sound mind. It sounds like the police force was the perfect job for you. I might not have lived a life worth bragging about to complete strangers on the internet but I can also say I've never beaten somebody up for no reason or framed an innocent man. Not all former police officers can say the same although I'm sure you're not one of them.

Well done on serving your Queen. I'm sure when she looks down on you and me from her position of extreme wealth and privilege she is very grateful for all you did.

God bless you.

[Morgan]

Crivvens, this thread is going well.

 

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 minute ago, Morgan said:

Crivvens, this thread is going well.

 

 

It’s now essential reading instead of a bore fest.

[Morgan]

1 minute ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

It’s now essential reading instead of a bore fest.

More importantly, do you have a nickname?

 

 

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

7 minutes ago, Morgan said:

More importantly, do you have a nickname?

 

 

 

Dentist boy.☺

[Morgan]

7 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Dentist boy.☺

Hi, I’m Hazel.

 

Miss W to you.

 

😳

[The Real Maroonblood]

13 minutes ago, Morgan said:

Hi, I’m Hazel.

 

Miss W to you.

 

😳

[Sharpie]

49 minutes ago, McGlynn The Money said:

 

My dear chap, you had a go at me first, involving yourself in a dispute that had nothing to do with you. 

If back in the old days, someone making a remark about your punctuation would instantly make you want to go boxing with them that would suggest that you were not of sound mind. It sounds like the police force was the perfect job for you. I might not have lived a life worth bragging about to complete strangers on the internet but I can also say I've never beaten somebody up for no reason or framed an innocent man. Not all former police officers can say the same although I'm sure you're not one of them.

Well done on serving your Queen. I'm sure when she looks down on you and me from her position of extreme wealth and privilege she is very grateful for all you did.

God bless you.

 

I am certainly not your dear, as this is a board where one involves in discussion it is often a case of different opinion. The first thing I would state is that your comments about John Finlay and his service were strictly that. They were not part of a dispute but were nothing more than a provocative comment made about a well respected member of this forum.

You now make comments about my mental stability because I indicated my displeasure by reacting in a manner of long ago. I apologised for this, it was not acceptable in todays world with much gentler souls. It however prompts you to suggest I was not of sound mind, your addition about it being most suitable for my chosen profession however puts an insulting assessment on all the persons who serve the profession.

You have obviously not lived a life worth bragging about, if you had you would not take such juvenile pleasure in demeaning those who have served, Her Majesty, and the general public, some with the sacrifice of their lives. You have never beaten up somebody for  no reason, or framed an innocent man, well see, something we both have in common.

As far as the Queen appreciating my service, I repeat I have a medal with Her head on it in appreciation of my Active Service, also have another medal awarded for my military, police, and volunteer services, I look on it as a sign of appreciation. My third medal was for exemplary service in Canadian policing, so I was never subject of action for any of the police deficiencies that you mention.

I will show my ability to show my compassion for you and your obvious personal extreme dealing with other people difficulties and desire to be the focus of attention, and I offer my total compassion to my dear fiends on JKB who are as sick and fed up of this excrement as I, so I say adieu my sad person get treatment, Amen.

 

 

[Sharpie]

3 minutes ago, Sharpie said:

 

I am certainly not your dear, as this is a board where one involves in discussion it is often a case of different opinion. The first thing I would state is that your comments about John Finlay and his service were strictly that. They were not part of a dispute but were nothing more than a provocative comment made about a well respected member of this forum.

You now make comments about my mental stability because I indicated my displeasure by reacting in a manner of long ago. I apologised for this, it was not acceptable in todays world with much gentler souls. It however prompts you to suggest I was not of sound mind, your addition about it being most suitable for my chosen profession however puts an insulting assessment on all the persons who serve the profession.

You have obviously not lived a life worth bragging about, if you had you would not take such juvenile pleasure in demeaning those who have served, Her Majesty, and the general public, some with the sacrifice of their lives. You have never beaten up somebody for  no reason, or framed an innocent man, well see, something we both have in common.

As far as the Queen appreciating my service, I repeat I have a medal with Her head on it in appreciation of my Active Service, also have another medal awarded for my military, police, and volunteer services, I look on it as a sign of appreciation. My third medal was for exemplary service in Canadian policing, so I was never subject of action for any of the police deficiencies that you mention.

I will show my ability to show my compassion for you and your obvious personal extreme dealing with other people difficulties and desire to be the focus of attention, and I offer my total compassion to my dear fiends on JKB who are as sick and fed up of this excrement as I, so I say adieu my sad person get treatment, Amen.

 

 

 Of course fiends is a spelling error, should be friends.

[FWJ]

1 hour ago, Morgan said:

Crivvens, this thread is going well.

 

 

These ones always do.

[Japan Jambo]

2 hours ago, Longbaws said:

Surely you agree that someone with a 300 bedroom house doesn't need to be claiming benefits?

 

Soft power doesn't get trials halted either.

 

Yes there is an argument that they bring in money through tourism but so does Dynamic Earth and Camera Obscura. 

 

a) she herself gives back what she receives, the rest clearly not. it's not as simple as you paint it but I kind of agree with you.

b) trial shouldn't be halted, whether he is guilty or not is a matter for the courts. happen to think there is at least a financial motive behind the claim, but again not for me to decide.

c) absolutely not the same, but I think you know that too! 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

4 hours ago, i8hibsh said:

See the whole 'life of luxury and wealth' argument - it is certainly valid but think of it this way if you may....her entire life is owned.  Her entire days are owned and out of her control.  Everything she does is part of her role.  She can barely do anything she chooses.  She will have no privacy or at least struggle to get any.  

 

I can barely stand speaking to someone for 2 minutes and doing the small talk - she has been doing this everyday for near 70 years.  Constantly in the company of that chosen for her.

 

All the wealth in the world would not want me to have that life.  And she can't do anything with her wealth.  It is not as if she can have a car boot sale or Sotheby's auctions.

 

Exactly, I would never swap places with any of them, not for all their money I wouldn't.

I can walk down any street in the country and nobody cares a jot who I am and doesn't give me a second look and for me that's priceless, the Queen, Charles, William, Kate or any of the royal family can't do the same.

 

[Longbaws]

14 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

a) she herself gives back what she receives, the rest clearly not. it's not as simple as you paint it but I kind of agree with you.

b trial shouldn't be halted, whether he is guilty or not is a matter for the courts. happen to think there is at least a financial motive behind the claim, but again not for me to decide.

c) absolutely not the same, but I think you know that too! 

I genuinely believe that it is indeed as simple as I think it is. Like all things though, I'm open minded and always happy to change my opinion if I learn something new👍

 

A. my posts are aimed at the monarchy as a whole 

 

B. I was referring a trial involving Paul Burrell

 

C. If they are a tourist attraction, as has been made out, then they are identical to the places I mentioned 

 

 

We live in one of the most taxed countries in the world. Should that money be used to maintain the NHS, Schools and mean we have a half decent standard of living? Of course.

 

Should that money be used to rewire Buckingham Palace and give money to a very wealthy family? Not a chance.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Longbaws

[Unknown user]

4 hours ago, i8hibsh said:

See the whole 'life of luxury and wealth' argument - it is certainly valid but think of it this way if you may....her entire life is owned.  Her entire days are owned and out of her control.  Everything she does is part of her role.  She can barely do anything she chooses.  She will have no privacy or at least struggle to get any.  

 

I can barely stand speaking to someone for 2 minutes and doing the small talk - she has been doing this everyday for near 70 years.  Constantly in the company of that chosen for her.

 

All the wealth in the world would not want me to have that life.  And she can't do anything with her wealth.  It is not as if she can have a car boot sale or Sotheby's auctions.

There's no reason Liz couldn't have retired and lived in private luxury if that's what she fancied.

[Unknown user]

4 hours ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

I'd imagine we get way, way more than that back in increased tourism and 'soft power' if we are looking at it from a straight economics perspective.

 

Tourists don't come to see the queen, Buckingham Palace won't disappear if we **** the Royal family off. In fact we could turn it into a giant hotel and theme park, get some actual money out of it.

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

There's no reason Liz couldn't have retired and lived in private luxury if that's what she fancied.

It's probably what she would have done had the allies lost the war.

[Longbaws]

4 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Tourists don't come to see the queen, Buckingham Palace won't disappear if we **** the Royal family off. In fact we could turn it into a giant hotel and theme park, get some actual money out of it.

 Agreed, the French turned theirs into the Louvre. Marvellous idea.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Longbaws

[Japan Jambo]

4 minutes ago, Longbaws said:

I genuinely believe that it is indeed as simple as I think it is. Like all things though, I'm open minded and always happy to change my opinion if I learn something new👍

 

A) my posts are aimed at the monarchy as a whole 

 

I was referring a trial involving Paul Burrell

 

C) If they are a tourist attraction, as has been made out, then they are identical to the places I mentioned 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1437145/how-much-money-does-the-royal-family-bring-in-to-uk-evg

 

I know nothing about the Paul Burrell trial! Will take a gander, anything I should be looking out for?

 

I've never heard of Dynamic Earth or Camera Obscura, a large % the planet will know who the queen is. 

[Longbaws]

1 minute ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1437145/how-much-money-does-the-royal-family-bring-in-to-uk-evg

 

I know nothing about the Paul Burrell trial! Will take a gander, anything I should be looking out for?

 

I've never heard of Dynamic Earth or Camera Obscura, a large % the planet will know who the queen is. 

I don't doubt that some folk will go to London and spend an hour or so getting a picture outside the gates but I don't believe for a second that they raise billions for the economy.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-145634/Royal-butler-trial-thrown-intervention-Queen.html

 

Not the greatest source re: Burrell trial but it gives you an idea what happened 👍

[McGlynn The Money]

10 hours ago, Sharpie said:

 

I am certainly not your dear, as this is a board where one involves in discussion it is often a case of different opinion. The first thing I would state is that your comments about John Finlay and his service were strictly that. They were not part of a dispute but were nothing more than a provocative comment made about a well respected member of this forum.

You now make comments about my mental stability because I indicated my displeasure by reacting in a manner of long ago. I apologised for this, it was not acceptable in todays world with much gentler souls. It however prompts you to suggest I was not of sound mind, your addition about it being most suitable for my chosen profession however puts an insulting assessment on all the persons who serve the profession.

You have obviously not lived a life worth bragging about, if you had you would not take such juvenile pleasure in demeaning those who have served, Her Majesty, and the general public, some with the sacrifice of their lives. You have never beaten up somebody for  no reason, or framed an innocent man, well see, something we both have in common.

As far as the Queen appreciating my service, I repeat I have a medal with Her head on it in appreciation of my Active Service, also have another medal awarded for my military, police, and volunteer services, I look on it as a sign of appreciation. My third medal was for exemplary service in Canadian policing, so I was never subject of action for any of the police deficiencies that you mention.

I will show my ability to show my compassion for you and your obvious personal extreme dealing with other people difficulties and desire to be the focus of attention, and I offer my total compassion to my dear fiends on JKB who are as sick and fed up of this excrement as I, so I say adieu my sad person get treatment, Amen.

 

 

 

I'm very happy with my life dear boy. So much so in fact that I don't feel the need to brag about it to strangers on the internet with tales which may or may not be true. The people who engage in that kind of behaviour are the worldwide web equivalent of the pub bore. More to be pitied than blamed but avoided if at all possible. 

No hard feelings though laddie. Hopefully I can buy you a pint one day. God bless.

 

10 hours ago, Jeffros Furios said:

admin delete

 

Are you stalking me? Just because we have a different opinion it doesn't excuse such childish language.

[i8hibsh]

35 minutes ago, Smithee said:

There's no reason Liz couldn't have retired and lived in private luxury if that's what she fancied.

 

 

Exactly. I respect her even more for that. She is so dedicated to her role.

[Japan Jambo]

5 minutes ago, Longbaws said:

I don't doubt that some folk will go to London and spend an hour or so getting a picture outside the gates but I don't believe for a second that they raise billions for the economy.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-145634/Royal-butler-trial-thrown-intervention-Queen.html

 

Not the greatest source re: Burrell trial but it gives you an idea what happened 👍

 

thanks, how bizarre! 

 

as for billions, doesn't need to be a fraction of that turn 'the family' into a net contributor. doesn't address the core issue though for those of a republican persuasion but a bit like brexit some times what is in the best interests of the economy are trumped by the emotions surrounding the issue. 

 

we'll no doubt see what happens when the keys get chucked at Charles and how much buy in he gets - frankly though he could be in bother if he keeps battering on about the climate with his carbon footprint.

[Japan Jambo]

35 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Tourists don't come to see the queen, Buckingham Palace won't disappear if we **** the Royal family off. In fact we could turn it into a giant hotel and theme park, get some actual money out of it.

 

'We'? - didn't realise you were on the deeds Smithee!!

 

You can't just appropriate whatever you want.

[Longbaws]

5 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

thanks, how bizarre! 

 

as for billions, doesn't need to be a fraction of that turn 'the family' into a net contributor. doesn't address the core issue though for those of a republican persuasion but a bit like brexit some times what is in the best interests of the economy are trumped by the emotions surrounding the issue. 

 

we'll no doubt see what happens when the keys get chucked at Charles and how much buy in he gets - frankly though he could be in bother if he keeps battering on about the climate with his carbon footprint.

Hard to disagree with most of that👍 I'm against all monarchies and would gladly bin the economy too. Pointless making sure that the economy is doing ok when people here starve and sleep on the streets.

 

Starting to think that all of my pet hates are linked 🤣

[bairdy]

On 14/11/2021 at 16:12, JamesM48 said:

ON a human level i do feel for a very old woman who has last her husband and is probably now on her last legs. On a political level its time we got shot of the over privileged outdated . archaic intuition. So when she does goes it should be the end of the monarchy in the UK. Its ludicrous to have " Princes " and " Princesses" and " Queens" ( well maybe not so much them  but seriously it just seems really silly bowing to someone who is meant to be superior just cause they had the luck to be born into a certain family. 

 

There will be citizens bereft about her death  and if thats fine too.

Excellent post, totally agree with you.

I'm a republican, but wish her all the best.

But when she does go, that should be the end of this outdated nonsense.

 

[luckydug]

3 hours ago, Sharpie said:

 As I have stated I am from an age I am sure you never lived in. Men were men, and often insult was resolved by an agreement to settle differences by doing so physically, I do regret I sometimes fall back into these days.  I make no secret of whom I am, where I am and what I have been. I have differences of opinion with some on here, but generally respect their views and responses. I however find it difficult to deal with someone who certainly by the present user name is totally new to the web page. Your whole motivation seems to be to disturb, and that I am sure is your right, you have an answer you think for everything that shows your self considered superiority, but sir, with no respect I consider you an anonymous coward, with considerable feelings of low esteem, and take pleasure in insulting, criticising and just being an absolute nuisance. There was a day when I would love to have got the jaicket off with you, but now  get satisfaction from knowing that you no doubt suffer in your loneliness when you realise who and what you are. A parasite. Please excuse any grammatical, or punctuation, I never had the senior years of education that you probably had I was in foreign climes serving my Queen, God Save The Queen. 

I'd like to think you and John were serving the rest of us as well. 

After all its the general public that were paying your wages, not the Queen. 

I respect your point of view but I can never get into this 'serving my queen' stuff. 

It's sad when anyone dies and my attitude to the Queen is the same level of sympathy as for any other stranger. 

 

[Unknown user]

37 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

'We'? - didn't realise you were on the deeds Smithee!!

 

You can't just appropriate whatever you want.

Yes We, it's owned by the Crown estates, which pay it's proceeds to the treasury.

[Japan Jambo]

5 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Yes We, it's owned by the Crown estates, which pay it's proceeds to the treasury.

 

Ironically in return for the income for the civil list which is where the complaints above subsidies above started.

 

'We' do not own them.

 

https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/about-us/our-structure-and-governance/

 

 

Status

The Crown Estate is constituted as a statutory corporation under the Crown Estate Act 1961. It is a body established in perpetuity under the Act as a trust estate. Independent of government and the monarch, The Crown Estate's public function is to: invest in and manage certain property assets belonging to the monarch; and remit its revenue surplus each year to the Exchequer.

It was in 1760 that the Sovereign first surrendered the surplus revenue (but not the ownership) of what is now The Crown Estate in England and Wales to Parliament, in exchange for income from the Government under the Civil List. Crown lands in Scotland were included in this arrangement from 1832. The arrangement has been renewed ever since by subsequent monarchs at the start of every reign. The assets of The Crown Estate are therefore not the property of the Government, nor are they the Sovereign's private estate. They are part of the hereditary possessions of the Sovereign "in right of the Crown".

[Unknown user]

4 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

Ironically in return for the income for the civil list which is where the complaints above subsidies above started.

 

'We' do not own them.

 

https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/about-us/our-structure-and-governance/

 

 

Status

The Crown Estate is constituted as a statutory corporation under the Crown Estate Act 1961. It is a body established in perpetuity under the Act as a trust estate. Independent of government and the monarch, The Crown Estate's public function is to: invest in and manage certain property assets belonging to the monarch; and remit its revenue surplus each year to the Exchequer.

It was in 1760 that the Sovereign first surrendered the surplus revenue (but not the ownership) of what is now The Crown Estate in England and Wales to Parliament, in exchange for income from the Government under the Civil List. Crown lands in Scotland were included in this arrangement from 1832. The arrangement has been renewed ever since by subsequent monarchs at the start of every reign. The assets of The Crown Estate are therefore not the property of the Government, nor are they the Sovereign's private estate. They are part of the hereditary possessions of the Sovereign "in right of the Crown".

 

Yes, and if there's no Sovereign it's ours.

 

It's owned by the office not the person, she has no claim over Crown estates if she's not the queen.

[Japan Jambo]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Yes, and if there's no Sovereign it's ours.

 

It's owned by the office not the person, she has no claim over Crown estates if she's not the queen.

 

🤣 very good, but Charles will...

 

[kila]

This thread will probably go on and on and on...

 

So, what page number do we reckon it'll happen?

 

[Unknown user]

5 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

🤣 very good, but Charles will...

 

 

I don't know what you're laughing at, this is how it works.

The Louvre got mentioned above, who owns that now? The nearest relative?

[Sooperstar]

2 hours ago, Sharpie said:

 Of course fiends is a spelling error, should be friends.

Stick with fiends, Bob.