The Royal Family #8

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
Anyways888 said:
I like the name. Google says the name has Italian origins:

Sienna- Latin. From the Italian city of Siena, which gave its name to a reddish shade of brown. The name itself is possibly influenced by the word sienna, meaning "orange-red".

I wonder if the child has the same red hair as it's mother and grandmother.
Click to expand...
I quite like Sienna too. Although I do think it would be a bit cheesy if she did have red hair and her name was 'orange red' like a description rather than a name!
 
Great_Kate said:
@thegirlscout yes, that would have been a prime Wessex job. But I actually don’t think any bigger European houses went. Maybe because his claim is a bit weak? Maybe because it’s still a touchy subject?
Click to expand...
Queen Sofia of Spain went as did royals from Litchenstien and what with Philip giving DNA samples to help identify the Romanovs I would have thought a higher ranking Royal would have gone. Wasn’t a fan of the mother’s outfit, was a bit OTT. But that’s why I love Royal weddings - you always get some weird and wonderful outfits!
 
Great_Kate said:
@thegirlscout yes, that would have been a prime Wessex job. But I actually don’t think any bigger European houses went. Maybe because his claim is a bit weak? Maybe because it’s still a touchy subject? I always wonder why some ex-European royals make the cut (the Greek for example) and some don’t. It seems there are no ties between the abolished Russian royals (or any nobility) to their counterparts. Which isn’t completely surprising. German abolished nobility stay among themselves and only the ones that are closely related to reigning monarchies turn up at bigger events internationally. Which iIrc is true for all the abolished nobles. And I think many countries have been kinder to their aristocracy after stripping them than Russia.

I like Sienna well enough. It’s neither out there nor was it obvious. I love their way of announcement. And I (for several personal reasons) love the name Elizabeth.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don’t dislike it, it was just that I thought every great grandchild of the Queen had to be announced with a full faced, colour photo else they didn’t exist 🤷‍♀️ ;)
 
I find all the bowing and forelock tugging to these people completely appalling.
They hold the likes of us in utter contempt.
If they didn’t how could the Queen possibly think it was acceptable to use her money - OUR money - to pay for the sweaty n’s defence and think, even for a second that he was in any way deserving of a medal?

metro.co.uk

Queen ‘spending millions on Andrew’s sex abuse case as he has no income’

His legal team includes $2,000-an-hour lawyer Andrew Brettler.
metro.co.uk metro.co.uk
 
Miss Begotten said:
I find all the bowing and forelock tugging to these people completely appalling.
They hold the likes of us in utter contempt.
If they didn’t how could the Queen possibly think it was acceptable to use her money - OUR money - to pay for the sweaty ponce’s defence and think, even for a second that he was in any way deserving of a medal?

metro.co.uk

Queen ‘spending millions on Andrew’s sex abuse case as he has no income’

His legal team includes $2,000-an-hour lawyer Andrew Brettler.
metro.co.uk metro.co.uk
Click to expand...
Just think, the British taxpayers are paying to defend Andrew. Because essentially they all get their money from us. Makes me feel very queasy!
 
Gym&Tonic said:
How pathetic is the useless fat fucker for expecting his elderly mother to pay his legal bills?
Click to expand...
She's done it all his life, so why break the habit of a lifetime now?

Great_Kate said:
I don’t think they have updated the line of succession- so Sienna might be not existing for real 🤭
Click to expand...
Maybe Bea used a surrogate, so she is definitely not in the line of succession? She held her baby bump so that's definite proof it was a fake!
 
Miss Begotten said:
I find all the bowing and forelock tugging to these people completely appalling.
They hold the likes of us in utter contempt.
If they didn’t how could the Queen possibly think it was acceptable to use her money - OUR money - to pay for the sweaty ponce’s defence and think, even for a second that he was in any way deserving of a medal?

metro.co.uk

Queen ‘spending millions on Andrew’s sex abuse case as he has no income’

His legal team includes $2,000-an-hour lawyer Andrew Brettler.
metro.co.uk metro.co.uk
Click to expand...
It is her money, it comes from income from the Duchy of Lancaster which is her private estate. None of Andrew's fees are coming from taxpayers via legal aid or the civil list nor even are they coming from income from the Crown Estate. Everyone is entitled to a legal defence team under the law
 
TYL159 said:
It is her money, it comes from income from the Duchy of Lancaster which is her private estate. None of Andrew's fees are coming from taxpayers via legal aid or the civil list nor even are they coming from income from the Crown Estate. Everyone is entitled to a legal defence team under the law
Click to expand...
I'm sure the tenants of the enormous Duchy of Lancaster are delighted that their rent is being used to fund Andrew's defence and his ski chalets. I bet they will be just as delighted if their rent goes up too.
 
NonDairyQueen said:
I'm sure the tenants of the enormous Duchy of Lancaster are delighted that their rent is being used to fund Andrew's defence and his ski chalets. I bet they will be just as delighted if their rent goes up too.
Click to expand...
It does not matter what they think. The Duchy of Lancaster is the Queen's private property to use the income from it as she wishes. It also includes the office and retail in the Savoy Estate in central London, hardly a poor area.

Andrew it seems has no income at the moment so even if he was an ordinary member of the public would get taxpayer funded legal aid which he is not getting thanks to the Queen funding his legal bills
 
@NonDairyQueen well, I don’t think any tenants have a right or in normal instances the knowledge how their landlord spends his income out of the rent? They might find it crappy but than who is letting their boss decide how to spend their pay check? The Dutchy money she spends (if this is even true) id basically her tax-return money from it.

BUT the whole reason she has this dukedom money at her disposal is because she is in the uber privileged position that the UK entertains a monarchy. I do think if you want to keep the role as a head of state and have been able to build up substantial private wealth through it over generations the expectations for your behaviour are quite high. She is not the first HoS that used the power/money of the position to protect/help/support the relatives. But let’s face it, she is doing it on a larger scale just because it goes on for decades. Many antics have been shut down but this is a private decision, she is entitled to make but the whole instances of the reality of her situation open her up to massive criticism by doing so. I find it hard to fall on one side of the discussion because both sides have valid and good arguments.
I do think Andrew will get away with a black eye in the legal department. His public perception is dead though and will never recover. Let’s hope someone sits HMTQ down and gives her a slap of reality. If anyone can bring the monarchy close to abolishment atm it’s Andrew and her actions of open support (not talking about meeting with him for tea, church or riding but money and official business). It’s her job to protect the crown and be of service to the UK. If she feels she cannot do it anymore in the capacity a 21th century crown and UK need it it’s time to step back. Stepping back can be an act of service as well.
Also, no one can convince me that Andrew does not have substantial private wealth at his disposal. There must be some well hidden trust funds in his name. Or art. Or antiques. No way are he, Fergie (and two daughters) living completely off money from the Queen. What about the chalet they are finally selling? His half of it could have been seized. He must have had some inheritances over the years (PP, QM). If it’s things, make him sell it (I am sure the family would buy it up). He dabbled in various business schemes, which I am sure he didn’t do exactly for free.
 
Last edited:
Isa_Drennan said:
“private property”
Click to expand...
Yes it is her private property. Not the Crown Estate which is held as a public estate for the benefit of the nation

Great_Kate said:
@NonDairyQueen well, I don’t think any tenants have a right or in normal instances the knowledge how their landlord spends his income out of the rent? They might find it crappy but than who is letting their boss decide how to spend their pay check? The Dutchy money she spends (if this is even true) id basically her tax-return money from it.

BUT the whole reason she has this dukedom money at her disposal is because she is in the uber privileged position that the UK entertains a monarchy. I do think if you want to keep the role as a head of state and have been able to build up substantial private wealth through it over generations the expectations for your behaviour are quite high. She is not the first HoS that used the power/money of the position to protect/help/support the relatives. But let’s face it, she is doing it on a larger scale just because it goes on for decades. Many antics have been shut down but this is a private decision, she is entitled to make but the whole instances of the reality of her situation open her up to massive criticism by doing so. I find it hard to fall on one side of the discussion because both sides have valid and good arguments.
I do think Andrew will get away with a black eye in the legal department. His public perception is dead though and will never recover. Let’s hope someone sits HMTQ down and gives her a slap of reality. If anyone can bring the monarchy close to abolishment atm it’s Andrew and her actions of open support (not talking about meeting with him for tea, church or riding but money and official business). It’s her job to protect the crown and be of service to the UK. If she feels she cannot do it anymore in the capacity a 21th century crown and UK need it it’s time to step back. Stepping back can be an act of service as well.
Also, no one can convince me that Andrew does not have substantial private wealth at his disposal. There must be some well hidden trust funds in his name. Or art. Or antiques. No way are he, Fergie (and two daughters) living completely off money from the Queen. What about the chalet they are finally selling? His half of it could have been seized. He must have had some inheritances over the years (PP, QM). If it’s things, make him sell it (I am sure the family would buy it up). He dabbled in various business schemes, which I am sure he didn’t do exactly for free.
Click to expand...
Even if Andrew faced criminal charges, which he is not, and was jailed it would have no impact on the monarchy.

He is behind Charles, William and his children and even behind Harry and his children in the line of succession so has zero chance of becoming King anyway.

He is as entitled to legal representation as anyone else however and he is not claiming legal aid which is taxpayer funded, whether he uses his own private funds to fund his lawyers (which he seems to have little if any of now, the Swiss chalet already being sold to pay earlier debts) or the Queen's private funds should not concern taxpayers
 
Last edited:
TYL159 said:
Yes it is her private property. Not the Crown Estate which is held as a public estate for the benefit of the nation
Click to expand...

They can say it’s her “private property” all they like but with a little bit of light scrutiny and independent thought:

BA83F928-DD8C-4B8E-8AE9-37228DEC0DD7.jpeg


Lizzie’s private ownership of the Duchy of Lancaster is at best a very grey area.
 
Isa_Drennan said:
They can say it’s her “private property” all they like but with a little bit of light scrutiny and independent thought:

View attachment 792065 q

Lizzie’s private ownership of the Duchy of Lancaster is at best a very grey area.
Click to expand...


The Duchy of Lancaster has been the private property of the monarch since the 13th century, that is just fact. It is no different to the private lands and estates any Dukedom holds in the UK such as the Duke of Northumberland at Alnwick or the Duke of Marlborough at Blenheim or the Duke of Norfolk at Arundel or the Duke of Westminster in central London
[/QUOTE]
 
TYL159 said:
The Duchy of Lancaster has been the private property of the monarch since the 13th century, that is just fact. It is no different to the private lands and estates any Dukedom holds in the UK such as the Duke of Northumberland at Alnwick or the Duke of Marlborough at Blenheim or the Duke of Norfolk at Arundel
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure that it is no different to some of the estates that you mention. In many cases much of the properties are privately owned by the families. None of the properties in the Duchy of Lancaster are owned privately by the Windsor family.
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top