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

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.
[/QUOTE]
I thought when Charles i lost his head there Duchies reverted to the State as they were privately owned by the Crown, not the family, so no Crown, no Estate, then Charles ii negotiated them back. Both duchies are extremely dodgy legally and tax wise, and only a member of the BRF, with the complicity of the courts and successive governments would be able to get away with it.
 
NonDairyQueen said:
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.
Click to expand...
I thought when Charles i lost his head there Duchies reverted to the State as they were privately owned by the Crown, not the family, so no Crown, no Estate, then Charles ii negotiated them back. Both duchies are extremely dodgy legally and tax wise, and only a member of the BRF, with the complicity of the courts and successive governments would be able to get away with it.
[/QUOTE]
Actually technically the jurisdiction of the county palatine of Lancaster simply passed to Cromwell when he was Lord Protector before reverting to the Crown at the Restoration.

There is nothing dodgy about it compared to any other private landowner and in this case using its funds saves the taxpayer having to fund Andrew's legal bills through legal aid
 
TYL159 said:
in this case using its funds saves the taxpayer having to fund Andrew's legal bills through legal aid
Click to expand...

This would never have happened. One of the richest families in the UK applying for legal aid? I can't see it.

I suspect Andrew would have found the money from somewhere if his mother didn't want to bail him out. He might have even found some sychophantic law firm to represent him pro-bono in return for OBE's or something.
 
leiadeler said:
Did you guys see the Queen getting booed? Never thought I would see the day that Lizzie would be receiving this kind of reaction 😂

Click to expand...

She was only booed by a handful of nationalist fanatics from the 45% who voted Yes to independence in 2014. Even Sturgeon ignores them as she knows she needs to win over the 55% of Scots who voted to keep the Queen and the Union in 2014. Most of that crowd was anyway still cheers not boos
 
Doodlebug005 said:
Booing a 95 year old...what sad tossers they are
Click to expand...

If being 95 years old renders our unelected head of state beyond criticism it’s time for her to step down.

TYL159 said:
She was only booed by a handful of nationalist fanatics from the 45% who voted Yes to independence in 2014. Even Sturgeon ignores them as she knows she needs to win over the 55% of Scots who voted to keep the Queen and the Union in 2014. Most of that crowd was anyway still cheers not boos
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence that no voters did so to keep the queen?
 
NonDairyQueen said:
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.
Click to expand...
I thought when Charles i lost his head there Duchies reverted to the State as they were privately owned by the Crown, not the family, so no Crown, no Estate, then Charles ii negotiated them back. Both duchies are extremely dodgy legally and tax wise, and only a member of the BRF, with the complicity of the courts and successive governments would be able to get away with it.
[/QUOTE]

They need to pass them to the left hand side.
 
Isa_Drennan said:
If being 95 years old renders our unelected head of state beyond criticism it’s time for her to step down.



Is there any evidence that no voters did so to keep the queen?
Click to expand...
By definition keeping the Union meant keeping its Head of State too

Isa_Drennan said:
People have a right to protest. If being 95 makes her immune from criticism then she should not be in the job. She’s not just some little old lady, she’s an unelected head of state.
Click to expand...
It was a great image for Unionists though who will no doubt use it at a key moment in any indyref2 campaign in ads targeted at swing voters to show how extreme and rude hardline Nats are
 
TYL159 said:
By definition keeping the Union meant keeping its Head of State too
Click to expand...

Of course but that’s not what I asked.


TYL159 said:
It was a great image for Unionists though who will no doubt use it at a key moment in any indyref2 campaign in ads targeted at swing voters to show how extreme and rude hardline Nats are
Click to expand...

What makes you think that all no voters are unionists or monarchists?
 
Last edited:
Isa_Drennan said:
Of course but that’s not what I asked.




What makes you think that all no voters are unionists or monarchists?
Click to expand...
Isa_Drennan said:
Of course but that’s not what I asked.




What makes you think that all no voters are unionists or monarchists?
Click to expand...
Polling which shows voters for Unionist parties want to keep the monarchy as do most Scots overall even if independence

www.thenational.scot

Scotland would vote to keep monarchy after independence, poll suggests

THE people of Scotland would likely vote to keep the British monarch as the head of state after independence, a new poll has revealed.
www.thenational.scot www.thenational.scot
 
Isa_Drennan said:
This doesn’t prove that all no voters are unionists and monarchists, does it?
Click to expand...
It proves that most No voters are monarchists and more Scots are monarchists than republicans too. So by booing the Queen Nationalists have given the Better Together campaign free advertising to be replayed in any future indyref2 campaign. So a great coup for Unionists and a free attack ad
 
TYL159 said:
It proves that most No voters are monarchists and more Scots are monarchists than republicans too. So by booing the Queen Nationalists have given the Better Together campaign free advertising to be replayed in any future indyref2 campaign. So a great coup for Unionists and a free attack ad
Click to expand...

It proves that most who took part in this poll and vote for a unionist party would keep the monarchy. However, post 2014 vote analysis showed that party affiliations didn’t always translate into votes in the referendum. That’s not surprising when you consider how much larger the voter turnout was for the referendum versus regular elections. I would agree that more No voters than not would keep the monarchy but the polling figures show that it is from all. In polls specifically asking about voting intention and position on the monarchy, the highest I’ve seen it polled at is 54% of No voters in favour of keeping the monarchy. I’ve never seen any polling that asks if Scots voted No to specifically to keep the monarchy or Yes to end it.

As for the Better together campaign, the type of Scots who care that much about the Queen were already voting No and would do so even if she bludgeoned a child to death in front of them. Loyalism is a big part of their identity. Focusing on the monarchy would not be a smart move for a No campaign as not all No voters are unionists and not all unionists are monarchists. Many like me voted No for reasons other than unionism.
 
Last edited:
Isa_Drennan said:
It proves that most who took part in this poll and vote for a unionist party would keep the monarchy. However, post 2014 vote analysis showed that party affiliations didn’t always translate into votes in the referendum. That’s not surprising when you consider how much larger the voter turnout was for the referendum versus regular elections. I would agree that more No voters than not would keep the monarchy but the polling figures show that it is from all. In polls specifically asking about voting intention and position on the monarchy, the highest I’ve seen it polled at is 54% of No voters in favour of keeping the monarchy. I’ve never seen any polling that asks if Scots voted No to specifically to keep the monarchy or Yes to end it.

As for the Better together campaign, the type of Scots who care that much about the Queen were already voting No and would do so even if she bludgeoned a child to death in front of them. Loyalism is a big part of their identity. Focusing on the monarchy would not be a smart move for a No campaign as not all No voters are unionists and not all unionists are monarchists. Many like me voted No for reasons other than unionism.
Click to expand...
Of course it is a smart move, the vast majority of the 55% No voters in 2014 are monarchists and they are who the No campaign need to keep. It is Sturgeon who needs to get them to switch to Yes given Yes lost in 2014 and booing the Queen will do precisely the opposite
 
TYL159 said:
Of course it is a smart move, the vast majority of the 55% No voters in 2014 are monarchists and they are who the No campaign need to keep. It is Sturgeon who needs to get them to switch to Yes given Yes lost in 2014 and booing the Queen will do precisely the opposite
Click to expand...

Are you Scottish?
 
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