|
Post by paulchen on Jul 11, 2009 13:13:45 GMT
Sorry if this is a bit of a one-man-band, but as a British Royalist I think this is an important consideration in modern times as a counter-balance to all the folk who delight in bashing the Royals.
There is a link on this site to a report by the Daily Telegraph on the Crown Estates. It quite amused me to read that the vast majority of the article consentrates on the value of the Crown Estates having gone down, as have many businesses in these hard times.
As usual, tucked away at the end, were a couple of things worth reading. Firstly, "While the asset value has fallen by £1.3 billion, the revenues from rents increased by 6 per cent, to £227 million, all of which goes to the Treasury." What a nice little earner Her Majesty is for Her Government.
Also, "The estate does not pay tax, however." Sorry? Isn't the basic definition of tax handing money over to the Government? Isn't the British Royal Family therefore not paying £227 million in tax? Am I missing something or does the media know better?
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Jul 4, 2009 17:22:40 GMT
Call me old fashioned but I think these things should take their natural run of events. Prince William is still relatively young and Prince Charles has been trained for the position.
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Jul 4, 2009 17:20:39 GMT
Sorry but I think Crown Princess Mary of Denmark and Princess Madeleine of Sweden are more glamorous. And Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden has a stunning, winning smile.
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Jun 30, 2009 9:35:37 GMT
I notice from the coverage of the UK Royal Finances Finances that little if no mention has been made of the money from the Crown Estates which HM The Queen has handed over to the Treasury, i.e. the Government.
The Notes for Editors on the Royal family's official website States quite clearly:
"1. Head of State Expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen to the Government of the revenue from the Crown Estate and other hereditary revenues. The Treasury’s gross receipts in respect of the Crown Estate were £211 million in 2007-08."
With the Royal Public Finances annual report, including details of public expenditure on property and travel, stating that Head of State expenditure for 2008-09 at £41.5 million, I wonder who is making the profit out of this lot...
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Jun 26, 2009 11:00:14 GMT
Having said the above, I just wonder how the Courts of The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia appear to do it so much better?
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Jun 25, 2009 11:50:23 GMT
Sorry Vittoria, but all three women [Elisabeth, Diana and Masako] were handed over to the equivalent of "Men in grey suits" and a world they couldn't/can't handle and have ended up fighting against it. The fact that these Royal Families hand over inexperienced girls for grooming into archaic ways is indeed history repeating itself.
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Jun 25, 2009 11:39:58 GMT
vittoria: I completely missed this response to my entry and perhaps it would have been a good thing if I hadn't noticed it. I'm sorry Vittoria but you completely miss the point I was making. OK, the press and media have a job to do. But, if “Society” finds what HRH Prince Harry or anyone within or outside any Royal Family says is so bad [rightly or wrongly], why do the press and media get away with repeating those same offensive words, etc verbatim and ad nausea? No, I am not thrilled by Prince Harry's late-adolescent stupidity. But neither, are the many British citizens of Pakistani ancestry [amongst my friends and colleagues] thrilled at having the same offensive words repeated every hour, on the hour by the media. As for “The Brits [sic] are paying taxes to support several members of the royal family and their privileged lifestyle”, please be aware that HM The Queen hands over more money from the Crown Estates to the Treasury than she receives back from the Government in the form of the Civil List which finances the Royal Family as a “Firm”. She was also happily persuaded by the Government to pay income tax. Her private income is as much her business as any other business person. Please also be aware that the increase in The Prince of Wales’s expenses, a recent non-story in the press and media, are on record as being as a direct result of the Government’s requirements of him as an Ambassador for this country at a time when many professional men would be contemplating retirement. And all this against the background of British Members of Parliament fiddling expenses for non-existent mortgages and irrelevant duck-houses. As a British taxpayer myself I resent more that my money is being mishandled by a Government whose Leader, and therefore our Prime Minister, is in an electable position and who we haven’t even elected. [Sorry Cinderella, but I just thought I ought to answer Vittoria’s assertions.]
|
|
|
Titles
Jun 21, 2009 21:17:16 GMT
Post by paulchen on Jun 21, 2009 21:17:16 GMT
Whatever the merit of Constantine's title, Queen Anne-Marie has the right to the title of Princess of Denmark. She is the daughter of the late King Frederick and Queen Ingrid, and sister of Queen Margarethe II, therefore a princess by right of blood in her own right. Unfortunately, Anne Marie renounced her succession rights to the throne of Denmark on marriage at the behest of her father as she was marrying King Constantine II of Greece, a foreign monarch. Having been deposed, Queen Anne-Marie of Greece apparently now uses a Danish diplomatic passport under the name Anne-Marie de Grecia. The Royal Family of Greece are Princes and Princesses of Greece and Denmark, not because of Anne-Marie, but because the first King of modern Greece, King George I , was originally HRH Prince William of Denmark.
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Jun 18, 2009 11:46:56 GMT
HRH The Prince of Wales actually had the signet ring before he got engaged to Lady Diana Spencer. There is a photograph at the time of the engagement showing their hands intertwined and their rings [Prince Charles’s signet ring and Diana’s engagement ring] side by side.
It has always been noticed that HRH The Prince of Wales has somewhat stubby fingers, so maybe he is more comfortable having the wedding ring on his little finger with the signet ring than next to each other on adjoining fingers.
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on May 2, 2009 20:31:57 GMT
When I saw a video of the coverage on TV I was shocked. A child on a bicycle narrowly misses being knocked over as the car collides with the monument.
I agree, a lot of questions need to be asked regarding security. Think of what could have happened if there had been a bomb in that car.
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Apr 22, 2009 7:45:52 GMT
The Act of Settlement wasn't enacted until the beginning of the 18th Century and the Tudors reigned during the 16th Century. I think I confused the original issue by mentioning Kings Edward V and Edward VIII. However, the comparison was because those Kings were proclaimed but not subsequently crowned, just like Jane, but are fully described as monarchs and have ordinal numbers, but Jane doesn't.
Having read a bit more deeply into the subject, I think there are two main reasons:
a. Jane tried to refuse the Crown when it was presented to her and the plan to put her on the Throne was all due to her scheming father-in-law.
b. Jane would have been the first Queen Regnant in England and, despite the manoeuvrings of King Henry VIII and his many wives and the on-an-off illegitimating of his two adult daughters, were they, as princesses, more preferable than a member of a younger branch of the family?
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Apr 17, 2009 8:25:30 GMT
True Sullyo. And why Edward VI's will didn't count as against Henry VIII's will.
I guess the Dudley family [Lady Jane Grey's in-laws] wasn't popular and Henry VIII was more highly regarded than his son. But just look what they let themselves in for with Queen Mary I. Although, otherwise, we would never have had the glory days of Queen Elizabeth I's reign.
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Apr 12, 2009 10:01:12 GMT
With the Anniversary of King Henry VIII's accession and a set of stamps from the Royal Mail celebrating the Tudors, including Lady Jane Grey, a question regarding her has popped into my head.
If HRH Prince William were to father an only child, a daughter who he called Jane, would she become HM Queen Jane I or HM Queen Jane II?
The reason for the question is that, although I believe she was proclaimed Queen, she is always called Lady Jane Grey still, as if she isn't officailly recognised.
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Apr 4, 2009 11:46:30 GMT
If you watch the whole footage, you will see that The Queen had her arm around Mrs Obama's waist. Her Majesty only broke away because Mrs Obama is so much taller than her and then asked the US President's wife to keep in touch. I think, like Cinderella says, that The Queen is a gracious lady, but she is no snob. I think she is a pretty good judge of character and enjoys people she meets being spontaneous rather than stuffy and boring. Remember the guy in Canada who asked to have his photo taken and put his arm around her shoulder? Did she say no? Did she frown? No, she smiled and just got on with it. Remember the American woman who hugged Her Majesty when she came into her house? Who wouldn't?
There is a time and place for everything. Her Majesty knows how to behave with other world leaders. She isn't just some dodery old woman, she is a seriously-experienced Head of State, just as much, if not more tahn any elected president. But she is a human being who enjoys an informal get-together.
Having said that, the press will always look for some molehill to make a mountain out of. I always remember a documentary, years ago, where The Queen and Princess Anne are discussing the President of Poland swearing. At the time you wouldn't have thought anything had happened, but later, at a reception, they have a laugh about it. That would be splashed on the front pages of the papers as outrageous nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Mar 25, 2009 16:08:57 GMT
It also seems to be a traditional Royal Wedding Day. If you read the article, two (other) previous Kings of Sweden have got married on that day.
|
|