So what kind of King will Charles be?

[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.

Sure a revolution. Thats not very likely.

[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/

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?

----
NP, but I'm an Irish Catholic, and given that the BRF stole a lot of their lands from the Church....not to mention all the land that they just took from Irish chieftains and peasants....I'm not so impressed with their property rights. What comes around, goes around. Everyone needs to rewatch the Monty Python Holy Grail scene with the peasants digging in the mud...

[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/

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?

----
NP, but I'm an Irish Catholic, and given that the BRF stole a lot of their lands from the Church....not to mention all the land that they just took from Irish chieftains and peasants....I'm not so impressed with their property rights. What comes around, goes around. Everyone needs to rewatch the Monty Python Holy Grail scene with the peasants digging in the mud...

If only the British agreed with you but they don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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).

The Queen had her own brand of gin; Princess Michael writes / sells books as “Princess Michael of Kent”; the Duke of Kent recently published his biography; Princess Anne’s son did at least one milk commercial. And Prince Charles had his own tell-all. Pretty much everything that raised “ire around his son” was lauded when other family members did similar things.

[Anonymous]

Charles is revolting, I do not see the appeal. He protected the pedophile Jimmy Saville, raised him to a status that kept him safe from police investigation and prosecution

Entire family is weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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).

The Queen had her own brand of gin; Princess Michael writes / sells books as “Princess Michael of Kent”; the Duke of Kent recently published his biography; Princess Anne’s son did at least one milk commercial. And Prince Charles had his own tell-all. Pretty much everything that raised “ire around his son” was lauded when other family members did similar things.

Did they all do that while constantly trashing the same family that made it possible?

[Anonymous]

He's had a lifetime to prepare for this job. His mother made it look easy. Let's see how he adjusts to the reality of the position. He's off to a poor start. He's what? 73? And still appears unready.

[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/

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.

Or the parliament abolishing the monarchy and taking the royal estate and converting it to public property by the same act

Sure a revolution. Thats not very likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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/

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?

----
NP, but I'm an Irish Catholic, and given that the BRF stole a lot of their lands from the Church....not to mention all the land that they just took from Irish chieftains and peasants....I'm not so impressed with their property rights. What comes around, goes around. Everyone needs to rewatch the Monty Python Holy Grail scene with the peasants digging in the mud...

If only the British agreed with you but they don’t.

That varies by age. By the time a balding out of touch William ascends, the ardent supporters will long since dead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

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?

----
NP, but I'm an Irish Catholic, and given that the BRF stole a lot of their lands from the Church....not to mention all the land that they just took from Irish chieftains and peasants....I'm not so impressed with their property rights. What comes around, goes around. Everyone needs to rewatch the Monty Python Holy Grail scene with the peasants digging in the mud...

If only the British agreed with you but they don’t.

That varies by age. By the time a balding out of touch William ascends, the ardent supporters will long since dead

Keep holding your breath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

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?

----
NP, but I'm an Irish Catholic, and given that the BRF stole a lot of their lands from the Church....not to mention all the land that they just took from Irish chieftains and peasants....I'm not so impressed with their property rights. What comes around, goes around. Everyone needs to rewatch the Monty Python Holy Grail scene with the peasants digging in the mud...

If only the British agreed with you but they don’t.

That varies by age. By the time a balding out of touch William ascends, the ardent supporters will long since dead

Doubtful sweetie, but keep hoping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

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?

----
NP, but I'm an Irish Catholic, and given that the BRF stole a lot of their lands from the Church....not to mention all the land that they just took from Irish chieftains and peasants....I'm not so impressed with their property rights. What comes around, goes around. Everyone needs to rewatch the Monty Python Holy Grail scene with the peasants digging in the mud...

If only the British agreed with you but they don’t.

That varies by age. By the time a balding out of touch William ascends, the ardent supporters will long since dead

Doubtful sweetie, but keep hoping.

The youth always feel that way, and then they come around as they age. Tale as old as time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

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?

----
NP, but I'm an Irish Catholic, and given that the BRF stole a lot of their lands from the Church....not to mention all the land that they just took from Irish chieftains and peasants....I'm not so impressed with their property rights. What comes around, goes around. Everyone needs to rewatch the Monty Python Holy Grail scene with the peasants digging in the mud...

If only the British agreed with you but they don’t.

That varies by age. By the time a balding out of touch William ascends, the ardent supporters will long since dead

It varies by color and age.

[Anonymous]

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

Do you really believe that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Do you really believe that?

The BRF receives 67 million pounds (1.24 pound for each taxpayer) estimated 2019 which included Buckingham Palace refurbishment. With or without BRF, the government would keep Buckingham Palace should that shouldn’t count against BRF. In 2013 estimated 500 million pounds of tourism and goes up every year.

So yes, the BRF brings in more than the costs. About 10x more.