I don't understand why this writer is calling it "a new low".
The Guardian investigation he linked to seems to have established that it went on for at least a decade under QEII. Charles only inherited the right to do it when she died last year.
People here in the UK like to pretend that the queen was a granny-saint and that the monarch is a completely benign "figurehead" (still chosen by god though🙄 and gets to sit on a gold throne in a gold room while millions need to decide if to heat or eat).
Of course you're right, and she, and all those who came before her, were active oppressive exploiters, but her death and him taking the job is opening a very small crack where people are more comfortable criticising the institution, and honestly, as depressing as it is that even this is getting pushback from royalists, I'll take it if it means more people in this country start to realise that our overlords are nothing but inbred parasites.
Yeah that's an interesting point. Here in NZ we outsource monarchy to the UK (I think it costs us about $1 per person per year) and it's often been said that this is likely to end during Charles' reign because he's way less popular than QEII.
Wait, it's not just some weird historical shit? You guys actually send them money?
Hahaha no but when they come and visit us we tend to splash out on security etc.
They don't really benefit from us financially at all as far as I know.
Thank fuck. I was about to load a boat up with tea and muskets and head over.
Heh. No, ironically the history here with the white settlers is the opposite insofar as we were mostly an autonomous colony, and when Britain passed a law giving New Zealand the right to full independence it took us 15 years to take them up on it.
They used to buy all our stuff and NZ was really annoyed when they stopped so they could join the EU.
We're like that kid that moves out but still comes round for meals. We were still regularly borrowing their Privy Council for use as our highest court until like 2004.
Then I guess we're the fat kid down the street trying to get you to come out and blow up ant hills with firecrackers.
Commonwealth countries seem so fucking strange for me. Probably for a lot of Americans.
Yeah no thanks, I'm definitely on the side of the civilians in the anthills. :P
Commonwealth countries seem so fucking strange for me.
I think this is because Americans think we are controlled by the UK or they get a say in our governance or something. But they don't. Belonging to the Commonwealth is just an extra set of sporting events and dialogues we can participate in.
As someone living in a parliamentary system with proportional representation, I find presidential systems weird. For me, it's important to be able to get rid of our leader as soon as the majority needs to, not wait around for years.
I don't think most of you give a shit, but it seems kind of weird to voluntarily recognize a monarch I guess.
Our president wasn't initially supposed to be quite so powerful, nor the rest of the federal government, but here we are. I care less about getting rid of them and more about the two party lock in bullshit.
Yeah it sucks. We used to have the two party system but we voted to abolish it and switch to proportional.
Having an outsourced royal family is basically just another celebrity for magazines. Some of the elderly like it.
It initially functioned as one of our constitutions' checks and balances - the kiwi we appoint to "represent" the monarch can disolve the government if it becomes tyrannical. So if we abolish the monarchy we will keep the representative.
I don’t think this is lower than the royal pedophilia, to be fair
I'm still amazed by how swiftly that was swept under the carpet.
Has this writer missed the past thousand years of the British monarchy?
Yeah, that’s one egregious thing, but it’s one of many, many things. Why do they think most rebellions happened? Because the peasantry didn’t get prime parking?
I keep seeing articles about this like the monarchy just suddenly started leeching the people’s money and I’m dumbfounded.
If they just started doing bad things, they weren't doing them before. You don't count past sins in fake journalism. You see a hot story, copy, paste, then hope people forget.
But the problem it was being an European Union member, not the expensive useless monarchy
expensive useless government
FTFY
Even a king needs a hobby.
Some people collect stamps. He collects immoral gains. Meh.
I'll have you know that Queen Elizabeth and her father were both stamp collectors! Really, there's really a royal stamp collection and its considered (likely) the best (the wisest in breath) in the world.
Always has been, lookup Leopold the 2nd of Belgium.
Greed has no limits by definition.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It is standard practice for the royals to seek to minimise their personal expenditure while maximising their income from other sources, normally the public purse.
Edward VIII found cash from those who died intestate in the boundaries of the duchy was sitting in an account in case claims arose against it.
George VI did very well out of the loyal servicemen who died serving their country in the second world war, who originated from within the confines of the duchy and had no will.
As disquiet about the practice of bona vacantia grew after the war, the royals announced that moneys collected would henceforth be given to charity – after processing costs had been deducted, of course.
Moneys we all thought were going to charity have instead been used to improve properties owned by the duchy, increasing the income stream that flows from them into Charles’s pockets.
Back in Queen Victoria’s reign, the government was told she was desperately short of cash to undertake her duties so a big uplift was provided.
The original article contains 759 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I don't understand why this writer is calling it "a new low".
The Guardian investigation he linked to seems to have established that it went on for at least a decade under QEII. Charles only inherited the right to do it when she died last year.
People here in the UK like to pretend that the queen was a granny-saint and that the monarch is a completely benign "figurehead" (still chosen by god though🙄 and gets to sit on a gold throne in a gold room while millions need to decide if to heat or eat).
Of course you're right, and she, and all those who came before her, were active oppressive exploiters, but her death and him taking the job is opening a very small crack where people are more comfortable criticising the institution, and honestly, as depressing as it is that even this is getting pushback from royalists, I'll take it if it means more people in this country start to realise that our overlords are nothing but inbred parasites.
Yeah that's an interesting point. Here in NZ we outsource monarchy to the UK (I think it costs us about $1 per person per year) and it's often been said that this is likely to end during Charles' reign because he's way less popular than QEII.
Wait, it's not just some weird historical shit? You guys actually send them money?
Hahaha no but when they come and visit us we tend to splash out on security etc.
They don't really benefit from us financially at all as far as I know.
Thank fuck. I was about to load a boat up with tea and muskets and head over.
Heh. No, ironically the history here with the white settlers is the opposite insofar as we were mostly an autonomous colony, and when Britain passed a law giving New Zealand the right to full independence it took us 15 years to take them up on it.
They used to buy all our stuff and NZ was really annoyed when they stopped so they could join the EU.
We're like that kid that moves out but still comes round for meals. We were still regularly borrowing their Privy Council for use as our highest court until like 2004.
Then I guess we're the fat kid down the street trying to get you to come out and blow up ant hills with firecrackers.
Commonwealth countries seem so fucking strange for me. Probably for a lot of Americans.
Yeah no thanks, I'm definitely on the side of the civilians in the anthills. :P
I think this is because Americans think we are controlled by the UK or they get a say in our governance or something. But they don't. Belonging to the Commonwealth is just an extra set of sporting events and dialogues we can participate in.
As someone living in a parliamentary system with proportional representation, I find presidential systems weird. For me, it's important to be able to get rid of our leader as soon as the majority needs to, not wait around for years.
I don't think most of you give a shit, but it seems kind of weird to voluntarily recognize a monarch I guess.
Our president wasn't initially supposed to be quite so powerful, nor the rest of the federal government, but here we are. I care less about getting rid of them and more about the two party lock in bullshit.
Yeah it sucks. We used to have the two party system but we voted to abolish it and switch to proportional.
Having an outsourced royal family is basically just another celebrity for magazines. Some of the elderly like it.
It initially functioned as one of our constitutions' checks and balances - the kiwi we appoint to "represent" the monarch can disolve the government if it becomes tyrannical. So if we abolish the monarchy we will keep the representative.
Yeah but Charles is suffering from a short reign penalty. He should really execute some prisoners; high dread means fewer factions.
Source: I play a lot of Crusader Kings
Have married off your son to his sister yet?
One of the former counsel members had a fling with a pig, though.
Deus vult!
Because everyone loved the old hag for reasons unknown. It's just the classic hypocrisy.
Nostalgic inertia.
Have some decorum, Betty Two Sticks, please.
I don’t think this is lower than the royal pedophilia, to be fair
I'm still amazed by how swiftly that was swept under the carpet.
Has this writer missed the past thousand years of the British monarchy?
Yeah, that’s one egregious thing, but it’s one of many, many things. Why do they think most rebellions happened? Because the peasantry didn’t get prime parking?
I keep seeing articles about this like the monarchy just suddenly started leeching the people’s money and I’m dumbfounded.
If they just started doing bad things, they weren't doing them before. You don't count past sins in fake journalism. You see a hot story, copy, paste, then hope people forget.
But the problem it was being an European Union member, not the expensive useless monarchy
FTFY
Even a king needs a hobby. Some people collect stamps. He collects immoral gains. Meh.
I'll have you know that Queen Elizabeth and her father were both stamp collectors! Really, there's really a royal stamp collection and its considered (likely) the best (the wisest in breath) in the world.
Always has been, lookup Leopold the 2nd of Belgium.
Greed has no limits by definition.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It is standard practice for the royals to seek to minimise their personal expenditure while maximising their income from other sources, normally the public purse.
Edward VIII found cash from those who died intestate in the boundaries of the duchy was sitting in an account in case claims arose against it.
George VI did very well out of the loyal servicemen who died serving their country in the second world war, who originated from within the confines of the duchy and had no will.
As disquiet about the practice of bona vacantia grew after the war, the royals announced that moneys collected would henceforth be given to charity – after processing costs had been deducted, of course.
Moneys we all thought were going to charity have instead been used to improve properties owned by the duchy, increasing the income stream that flows from them into Charles’s pockets.
Back in Queen Victoria’s reign, the government was told she was desperately short of cash to undertake her duties so a big uplift was provided.
The original article contains 759 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
color me shocked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g9zxduFtSM&t=17s
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=5g9zxduFtSM&t=17s
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.