What I'd be interested in is a debate on the impact on land and the environment by the royal family (given the amount of land they own) - both positive and negative impacts - something which I'm sure would be of interest to many on the forum. A debate not necessarily from a royalist vs republic viewpoint, and not in a critical way either, but just to gain some knowledge and understanding. Some here may know a lot about this. Perhaps best discussed on another thread though, and perhaps another time.
What a fantastic day!!
- Thread starter Robbi
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
- Status
This is my argument, the moment any land under royal control, or belonging to the crown, gets handed over to a gov or a council, you can kiss bye bye to it.
Last edited:
I guess the view on this depends on who you speak to. There was a news piece on something like this topic recently. I only saw the interview with a resident of one of the islands affected by duchy of Cornwall. The only way to land anything on the island is a dock owned by the duchy which charges seemingly excessive fees to land or moor there. The interviewee claimed the duchy was maintaining an effectively feudal system and negatively affecting islanders. Others make their money from the duchy or receive benefits of some kind from the duchy and disagree with this view.
As to land issues, not everything owned by the king is Crown owned, the royals have their own private estates which are likely to remain with them. Unless there's a revolution and they're deposed by force I guess.
As to how royals treat tenants or employees I don't really know much. However i worked in the same company as a guy who was tenant and joint landlord at one of the late queen's two pubs. He was OK with the way things worked but said it was a bit more hassle than being a tenant of a normal company. He ended up giving it up but no idea the real reason why. Long since retired and dead I heard. Also nothing to do with the monarch.
As to land issues, not everything owned by the king is Crown owned, the royals have their own private estates which are likely to remain with them. Unless there's a revolution and they're deposed by force I guess.
As to how royals treat tenants or employees I don't really know much. However i worked in the same company as a guy who was tenant and joint landlord at one of the late queen's two pubs. He was OK with the way things worked but said it was a bit more hassle than being a tenant of a normal company. He ended up giving it up but no idea the real reason why. Long since retired and dead I heard. Also nothing to do with the monarch.
It’s threads like this one that make me understand why there is a moratorium on politics and religion on some forums. People everywhere seem to be constantly searching for something to offend them these days.
I’ve spent most of the weekend outdoors with my OH and have thoroughly enjoyed it. It has been a fantastic weekend for many of us but possibly for many different reasons.
I’ve spent most of the weekend outdoors with my OH and have thoroughly enjoyed it. It has been a fantastic weekend for many of us but possibly for many different reasons.
I’m not 100% positive but I believe the crown is still exempt from death duties so it isn’t surprising that they‘ve accumulated land and properties and I’m sure they will continue to do so. There is also a loophole that some of the more taxation savvy major estates exploit which is to register as a limited company.
Last edited:
Good job there's no chance of ending up in a field with knives,axes and saws,phew...
Well, since we left Europe, we've lost a lot of tourist dollars, I wonder how much more we'd loose if we threw the last of our heritage in the bin and became just another island with nothing much to offer for the tourists to gawp at, and spend their money on.
I do think somebody ought to calculate how much the monarchy costs , and how much the country brings in with monarchy tourism before we throw out our heritage.
Like it or not, it's our heritage, and we ought to honour it and what it does for the country. After all, who visits Holland ( for instance,) to go see the Royal family and changing of the guard, parades, and palaces there?
Plenty come here to see that, and spend lots of money to do so.
I'm not realy a royalist, but neither am i against it. Horses for courses. I wouldnt dream of of joining a revolution. If I had to choose between being a roundhead or royalist, I'd be a royalist... the clothes are nicer!
I do think somebody ought to calculate how much the monarchy costs , and how much the country brings in with monarchy tourism before we throw out our heritage.
Like it or not, it's our heritage, and we ought to honour it and what it does for the country. After all, who visits Holland ( for instance,) to go see the Royal family and changing of the guard, parades, and palaces there?
Plenty come here to see that, and spend lots of money to do so.
I'm not realy a royalist, but neither am i against it. Horses for courses. I wouldnt dream of of joining a revolution. If I had to choose between being a roundhead or royalist, I'd be a royalist... the clothes are nicer!
I'm not entirely convinced that keeping a monarchy as some kind of royal theme park is really the answer.
All those historic buildings will still be there - it's not as though tourists are allowed in for a cuppa and a biscuit with the monarch. They can still come and visit the buildings and monuments, nothing would change there.
France, Germany, the USA (plus many others) - they don't have a monarch, yet people still visit them. No. Monarch as a tourist attraction isn't an excuse for keeping them.
An addendum. When it comes to their personal wealth, they also own Regent Street in London and take all associated duties from that. I seem to recall hearing that they get more money from owning Regent Street than any other income source they have. Not sure how true that is, I don't have the time to fact check right now. But it shows the extent of all the hidden extras they have.
All those historic buildings will still be there - it's not as though tourists are allowed in for a cuppa and a biscuit with the monarch. They can still come and visit the buildings and monuments, nothing would change there.
France, Germany, the USA (plus many others) - they don't have a monarch, yet people still visit them. No. Monarch as a tourist attraction isn't an excuse for keeping them.
An addendum. When it comes to their personal wealth, they also own Regent Street in London and take all associated duties from that. I seem to recall hearing that they get more money from owning Regent Street than any other income source they have. Not sure how true that is, I don't have the time to fact check right now. But it shows the extent of all the hidden extras they have.
I posted on the first page of this thread.
It would be appreciated if everyone who has decided to moan would read.......
"I think we just accept that a holiday means different things to different people.
A national event and spectacle like a Coronation comes along so rarely that, regardless of one's political leanings, it is a pillar in the annals of history. We name periods of time after reigning monarch's.
When I was little in school we were told that we were the New Elizabethans and great things were expected of us.
We have seen such enormous changes in those years, and though the King won't reign as long as the late Queen, he is King now. It's his name on the laws and statutes, it's his head on the coinage, it's his name that will be remembered as this time.
Even if you don't agree with the political, or religious, background to the Coronation, it's still an important day.
My day was quiet, peaceful, my garden is rapidly becoming a wee jungle....and I'm eyeing up the just budding Beech for noyeau.
I'm pleased others seem to have had a good day too; regardless of whether they eyed up the pomp and ceremony or not."
As for closing threads; we're slated if we do and slated if we don't, but I would point out that differing viewpoints are normal within a conversation.
The alternative is either no conversation, or a thread in praise and (probably totally deleted since that really would be political) one agin.
Better to keep it civil and everyone gets a word in.
It would be appreciated if everyone who has decided to moan would read.......
"I think we just accept that a holiday means different things to different people.
A national event and spectacle like a Coronation comes along so rarely that, regardless of one's political leanings, it is a pillar in the annals of history. We name periods of time after reigning monarch's.
When I was little in school we were told that we were the New Elizabethans and great things were expected of us.
We have seen such enormous changes in those years, and though the King won't reign as long as the late Queen, he is King now. It's his name on the laws and statutes, it's his head on the coinage, it's his name that will be remembered as this time.
Even if you don't agree with the political, or religious, background to the Coronation, it's still an important day.
My day was quiet, peaceful, my garden is rapidly becoming a wee jungle....and I'm eyeing up the just budding Beech for noyeau.
I'm pleased others seem to have had a good day too; regardless of whether they eyed up the pomp and ceremony or not."
As for closing threads; we're slated if we do and slated if we don't, but I would point out that differing viewpoints are normal within a conversation.
The alternative is either no conversation, or a thread in praise and (probably totally deleted since that really would be political) one agin.
Better to keep it civil and everyone gets a word in.
Rare though coronations are, even rarer is the abolition of a monarchy.
If it's part of history you want to be, and witness truly historical events, then that would be the way to go...
If it's part of history you want to be, and witness truly historical events, then that would be the way to go...
As someone who works in the tourist industry, speaks to many different nationalities, the monarchy still holds a lot of weight to those abroad...
Even recently was talking to a Jamaican American who was gutted she was not in the UK a week longer so she could see the coronation...that wasn't because of the buildings or the history, that was the Present!
For every 1 I'm sure there is at least 1, 2, 20? others against, but I know first hand the positive impact it has on tourism. Whether that outweighs the ideas of the republicans, no idea.
Even recently was talking to a Jamaican American who was gutted she was not in the UK a week longer so she could see the coronation...that wasn't because of the buildings or the history, that was the Present!
For every 1 I'm sure there is at least 1, 2, 20? others against, but I know first hand the positive impact it has on tourism. Whether that outweighs the ideas of the republicans, no idea.
We've been there, done that. Civil war, etc.,
It wasn't a success, and the country gathered up and crowned a new king.
Pax.
Just for fun
Response from Chat-GPT:
<
The management of land owned by the UK royal family varies depending on the specific property and its intended use. However, the royal family has a strong history of promoting conservation values and sustainable land management practices.
For example, the Crown Estate, which is owned by the monarch and managed by an independent organization, has a mandate to generate revenue for the UK Treasury while also managing its properties in a sustainable and responsible way. The Crown Estate has received numerous awards for its work in sustainable land management, such as the Sustainable Development Award from the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.
Similarly, the Duchy of Cornwall, has a strong focus on sustainable agriculture and land management practices. The Duchy manages a wide range of land and property, including farms, forestry, and residential and commercial properties, and it is committed to promoting sustainable practices that support biodiversity, reduce carbon emissions, and protect natural resources.
Overall, while the management of land owned by the UK royal family may not always be perfect, there is a strong commitment to promoting conservation values and sustainable land management practices.
>
Response from Chat-GPT:
<
The management of land owned by the UK royal family varies depending on the specific property and its intended use. However, the royal family has a strong history of promoting conservation values and sustainable land management practices.
For example, the Crown Estate, which is owned by the monarch and managed by an independent organization, has a mandate to generate revenue for the UK Treasury while also managing its properties in a sustainable and responsible way. The Crown Estate has received numerous awards for its work in sustainable land management, such as the Sustainable Development Award from the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.
Similarly, the Duchy of Cornwall, has a strong focus on sustainable agriculture and land management practices. The Duchy manages a wide range of land and property, including farms, forestry, and residential and commercial properties, and it is committed to promoting sustainable practices that support biodiversity, reduce carbon emissions, and protect natural resources.
Overall, while the management of land owned by the UK royal family may not always be perfect, there is a strong commitment to promoting conservation values and sustainable land management practices.
>
Well, for me, I'm glad we have a monarchy. I see the civil wars all over the world where someone decides they want to be in charge of a country simply to line their own pockets.. (one could also say that about the monarchy and our own government too) but at least our ways are civil and we don't resort to killing people to gain supremacy in our country.
The only reason I didn't watch the coronation is that a) I don't have a telly, and I found something productive and relaxing to do elsewhere doing my nalbinding and tablet weaving course in the woods with an overnight stay in a lovely safari tent , and I had a wonderful time in the outdoors. I shall remember that day, and have produced some items that will be a great memory of the day.
I'm not realy interested in dressing up in tiaras or being in London in crowds of people to see it in person, or watching others do it.
That's not to say, I didn't think it was a great and historical occasion.
We should not moan about it all, if you don't want a monarchy, we're you there protesting and putting your money where your mouth is? I doubt it! So just chill, and accept that for some..probably the majority of Britons it's something they are proud of, and want, so let them get on with it, and find something to do that better suits you, rather that spit nails about it.
Nobody agrees with every aspect of life, and that is what makes it interesting. Remember the last time we became a Republic in Cromwell time. Its a dangerous thing, he became a dictator on every aspect of normal life with dire consequences for not complying like a lot of republics all over the world, so I don't think we have it too bad.
Life is never perfect, and millions of opinions will never fully agree, as we all have such different lives.
I'm happy to live simply and within my means, I'm happy to let Charles and family live their lives. Wealth and all the trimming don't make life better, as the current problems with certain family members prove. So good luck to them all, and meanwhile I'll live my life how I feel comfortable, small, insignificant, poor and happy, rather than rich and having my life, motives, and speculation on every move splashed all over the internet.
Good luck to them. No envy of their lifestyle and wealth here.
Each to their own, and be happy for it. No need to be gripey about it.
One thing I would like to see is an English national costume. The Welsh and Scots have one, why don't we english? Perhaps that simple thing would give us a bit more pride...just a thought.
The only reason I didn't watch the coronation is that a) I don't have a telly, and I found something productive and relaxing to do elsewhere doing my nalbinding and tablet weaving course in the woods with an overnight stay in a lovely safari tent , and I had a wonderful time in the outdoors. I shall remember that day, and have produced some items that will be a great memory of the day.
I'm not realy interested in dressing up in tiaras or being in London in crowds of people to see it in person, or watching others do it.
That's not to say, I didn't think it was a great and historical occasion.
We should not moan about it all, if you don't want a monarchy, we're you there protesting and putting your money where your mouth is? I doubt it! So just chill, and accept that for some..probably the majority of Britons it's something they are proud of, and want, so let them get on with it, and find something to do that better suits you, rather that spit nails about it.
Nobody agrees with every aspect of life, and that is what makes it interesting. Remember the last time we became a Republic in Cromwell time. Its a dangerous thing, he became a dictator on every aspect of normal life with dire consequences for not complying like a lot of republics all over the world, so I don't think we have it too bad.
Life is never perfect, and millions of opinions will never fully agree, as we all have such different lives.
I'm happy to live simply and within my means, I'm happy to let Charles and family live their lives. Wealth and all the trimming don't make life better, as the current problems with certain family members prove. So good luck to them all, and meanwhile I'll live my life how I feel comfortable, small, insignificant, poor and happy, rather than rich and having my life, motives, and speculation on every move splashed all over the internet.
Good luck to them. No envy of their lifestyle and wealth here.
Each to their own, and be happy for it. No need to be gripey about it.
One thing I would like to see is an English national costume. The Welsh and Scots have one, why don't we english? Perhaps that simple thing would give us a bit more pride...just a thought.
And whilst we're at it, we don't have a national anthem either.
We use the royal anthem as a default.
For my money it should be this:
or this:
I'm sure there's something there we can all get behind.
As for abolition of monarchy resulting in bloodshed and violence. Well, that was a long time ago. No reason why it should be the same if it was done constitutionally. I mean, if we are going to look far back into history about what happens when we abolish a monarchy, then having one has proved to be just as bloody in our history.
We use the royal anthem as a default.
For my money it should be this:
I'm sure there's something there we can all get behind.
As for abolition of monarchy resulting in bloodshed and violence. Well, that was a long time ago. No reason why it should be the same if it was done constitutionally. I mean, if we are going to look far back into history about what happens when we abolish a monarchy, then having one has proved to be just as bloody in our history.
I agree with the National Anthem - as a Welshman, and a proud British citizen, it annoys me when the English rugby team sings the British National Anthem
My goodness. That's slightly terrifying. Makes me think that there may be many aspects of life in which I could just replace myself with chatGP and get better results.Just for fun
Response from Chat-GPT:
<
The management of land owned by the UK royal family varies depending on the specific property and its intended use. However, the royal family has a strong history of promoting conservation values and sustainable land management practices.
For example, the Crown Estate, which is owned by the monarch and managed by an independent organization, has a mandate to generate revenue for the UK Treasury while also managing its properties in a sustainable and responsible way. The Crown Estate has received numerous awards for its work in sustainable land management, such as the Sustainable Development Award from the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.
Similarly, the Duchy of Cornwall, has a strong focus on sustainable agriculture and land management practices. The Duchy manages a wide range of land and property, including farms, forestry, and residential and commercial properties, and it is committed to promoting sustainable practices that support biodiversity, reduce carbon emissions, and protect natural resources.
POverall, while the management of land owned by the UK royal family may not always be perfect, there is a strong commitment to promoting conservation values and sustainable land management practices.
>
I'm not strongly opinionated one way or the other. I do think the royal family could be a tremendous force for good and I'm sure its wealth and influence could be leveraged in more ways and to a greater extent than it currently is, to the benefit of everyone. I would be sad to see it disappear though. I'm not sure we'd gain much from it disappearing, but stand to gain a lot from sensible change and reform. They do put on a good ceremony that's for sure. I'm glad people got a lot of enjoyment out of it.
- Status
Similar threads
