So what kind of King will Charles be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expect to see this in the next few years in the UK, it's inevitable.

https://people.com/royals/queen-margrethe-denmark-strips-four-grandchildren-royal-titles/

Looks like Prince Joachim’s opinion in this matter was not considered.

Where does it say that? The only one I hear complaining is his ex wife.

Try reading the news-it’s all over the papers and prince joachim is publicly pissed and saying he was only given 5 days notice before his kids titles were taken away

Zzzzzzz. Don’t care.

Yet you’re reading and posting.

I care about Charles - the topic of the thread. I don’t care about some whiny entitled second son in Denmark or wherever.

^^^and the fact that he commented and was all upset about it just further explains why his mom felt the first place. His children should not have their “identity” wrapped up in this - they are so far from the throne.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expect to see this in the next few years in the UK, it's inevitable.

https://people.com/royals/queen-margrethe-denmark-strips-four-grandchildren-royal-titles/

Looks like Prince Joachim’s opinion in this matter was not considered.

Where does it say that? The only one I hear complaining is his ex wife.

Try reading the news-it’s all over the papers and prince joachim is publicly pissed and saying he was only given 5 days notice before his kids titles were taken away

Zzzzzzz. Don’t care.

Yet you’re reading and posting.

I care about Charles - the topic of the thread. I don’t care about some whiny entitled second son in Denmark or wherever.

^^^and the fact that he commented and was all upset about it just further explains why his mom felt the first place. His children should not have their “identity” wrapped up in this - they are so far from the throne.

The parents messed up big time. They should have early on set their kids on the path to be self sufficient and foster an identity beyond the royal family since that was never going to be their future.

[Anonymous]

Only a few bowed / curtsy when William walked by at vigil. Pretty sure it’s dying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only a few bowed / curtsy when William walked by at vigil. Pretty sure it’s dying.

Which is fine because again, it’s not required and wasn’t with the Queen either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expect to see this in the next few years in the UK, it's inevitable.

https://people.com/royals/queen-margrethe-denmark-strips-four-grandchildren-royal-titles/

Looks like Prince Joachim’s opinion in this matter was not considered.

Where does it say that? The only one I hear complaining is his ex wife.

Try reading the news-it’s all over the papers and prince joachim is publicly pissed and saying he was only given 5 days notice before his kids titles were taken away

Zzzzzzz. Don’t care.

Yet you’re reading and posting.

I care about Charles - the topic of the thread. I don’t care about some whiny entitled second son in Denmark or wherever.

^^^and the fact that he commented and was all upset about it just further explains why his mom felt the first place. His children should not have their “identity” wrapped up in this - they are so far from the throne.

It's not about their "identity", it's about merching the heck out of the Royal family. That's why they all are so upset.

[Anonymous]

The insistence on titles King of Greece, Bulgaria, etc is idiotic. They were all Habsburg locals chosen to rule the countries by the powerful Empire then. Prince Phillip was not Greek at all. Bulgarian and Romanian "kings" were all appointed by the Habsburgs. Ridiculous! They hoped to spread their kingdom further to the Aegen as the Ottoman Empire collapsed. Habsburgs forced the Bulgarian King into the Second Balkan War to gain more territory.
Then these same bas***ds destabilized the Middle East after the First World War.
I know that the only kingdom born in the 1800s with its own ethnic King was the Serbian Kingdom. Peasants both dynasties. Then married a Romanian princess, who was, yes, of course, Austrian by blood or some other Germanic bs.
But, could these Habsubrgs let tiny Serbia exist? Nope, had to invade it to extend their Empire.
Elizabeth II was around 45% German; this is firm evidence. Then she married a German, making Charlie, what 80% German?
I am sure all here know how great these wonderful German autocracies were for Europe and the world. Brought us nothing but democracy, peace, and happiness.
And that is before adding the sins of the British Monarchs to the table.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expect to see this in the next few years in the UK, it's inevitable.

https://people.com/royals/queen-margrethe-denmark-strips-four-grandchildren-royal-titles/

I mean the royals in Denmark also get a lot less taxpayer money so not sure that the BRF wants to really lean into that one.

Why do people keep calling this "taxpayer money?" None of the money used by the BRF is paid for by British taxes. All of the funds generated by Royal assets are turned over to the state and then a small portion is returned to them for use as the "Sovereign Grant." People feel so out upon and entitled, but no, they got these most of these assets in the 1500s and still have them. So what...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expect to see this in the next few years in the UK, it's inevitable.

https://people.com/royals/queen-margrethe-denmark-strips-four-grandchildren-royal-titles/

I mean the royals in Denmark also get a lot less taxpayer money so not sure that the BRF wants to really lean into that one.

Why do people keep calling this "taxpayer money?" None of the money used by the BRF is paid for by British taxes. All of the funds generated by Royal assets are turned over to the state and then a small portion is returned to them for use as the "Sovereign Grant." People feel so out upon and entitled, but no, they got these most of these assets in the 1500s and still have them. So what...

Income generated in English land is taxes. The fact that the royals perform a highway hold-up and then act generous by ‘giving’ 75% to the government is just a ridiculous workaround.

Imagine if that $100 million was used to heat all the homes that are going to be hammered this winter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

She’s dumb then. Taxpayers don’t pay for the royal family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expect to see this in the next few years in the UK, it's inevitable.

https://people.com/royals/queen-margrethe-denmark-strips-four-grandchildren-royal-titles/

I mean the royals in Denmark also get a lot less taxpayer money so not sure that the BRF wants to really lean into that one.

Why do people keep calling this "taxpayer money?" None of the money used by the BRF is paid for by British taxes. All of the funds generated by Royal assets are turned over to the state and then a small portion is returned to them for use as the "Sovereign Grant." People feel so out upon and entitled, but no, they got these most of these assets in the 1500s and still have them. So what...

Income generated in English land is taxes. The fact that the royals perform a highway hold-up and then act generous by ‘giving’ 75% to the government is just a ridiculous workaround.

Imagine if that $100 million was used to heat all the homes that are going to be hammered this winter?

Then why doesn't the government buy the property from the monarch then? Or do you think they should just seize it illegally?

[Anonymous]

The BRF brings in tourism and probably a lot more than they get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expect to see this in the next few years in the UK, it's inevitable.

https://people.com/royals/queen-margrethe-denmark-strips-four-grandchildren-royal-titles/

I mean the royals in Denmark also get a lot less taxpayer money so not sure that the BRF wants to really lean into that one.

Why do people keep calling this "taxpayer money?" None of the money used by the BRF is paid for by British taxes. All of the funds generated by Royal assets are turned over to the state and then a small portion is returned to them for use as the "Sovereign Grant." People feel so out upon and entitled, but no, they got these most of these assets in the 1500s and still have them. So what...

Income generated in English land is taxes. The fact that the royals perform a highway hold-up and then act generous by ‘giving’ 75% to the government is just a ridiculous workaround.

Imagine if that $100 million was used to heat all the homes that are going to be hammered this winter?

Then why doesn't the government buy the property from the monarch then? Or do you think they should just seize it illegally?

The monarchy didn’t “buy” most of the property, they conquered it or seized it as Royal prerogative. The state could certainly do the same.

[Anonymous]

Charles licensed the heck out of Highgrove. There’s a Highgrove product for everything. At least he’s trying to earn money for himself/his charities. I was a bit surprised to learn this because it seems a bit tacky but different strokes.

It does make me wonder why the ire around his son wanting the same (before earning off of tell-alls).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expect to see this in the next few years in the UK, it's inevitable.

https://people.com/royals/queen-margrethe-denmark-strips-four-grandchildren-royal-titles/

I mean the royals in Denmark also get a lot less taxpayer money so not sure that the BRF wants to really lean into that one.

Why do people keep calling this "taxpayer money?" None of the money used by the BRF is paid for by British taxes. All of the funds generated by Royal assets are turned over to the state and then a small portion is returned to them for use as the "Sovereign Grant." People feel so out upon and entitled, but no, they got these most of these assets in the 1500s and still have them. So what...

Income generated in English land is taxes. The fact that the royals perform a highway hold-up and then act generous by ‘giving’ 75% to the government is just a ridiculous workaround.

Imagine if that $100 million was used to heat all the homes that are going to be hammered this winter?

Then why doesn't the government buy the property from the monarch then? Or do you think they should just seize it illegally?

The monarchy didn’t “buy” most of the property, they conquered it or seized it as Royal prerogative. The state could certainly do the same.

Are you Russian?