Society/Culture The house of Windsor

[M Malice]

I think you might be jumping to the wrong conclusion there m8....That piccy was taken immediately after she accidentally trod in some Corgi doggy do's; & was captured at the precise moment she caught her first whiff of it.....'Footman, I say....Over here squire....There's a jolly good fellow now'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groom_of_the_Stool
says there is no "groom of the stool" now but i assume it would be a state secret if there was. you wouldn't want that story to leak.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/27/queens-speech-austerity_n_7451008.html
i do understand the items mentioned are not her personal property, but just a dash or hypocrisy there. i have said before, no comment on the character of the royals but the whole institution of genetic rule is abhorrent.

 

[Mike Smyth]

bloodline. that is the only reason this particular family is the royal family. i can not fathom how anybody can support such a system. i have zero opinion on the personalities involved in this current crop of royals, though there can be no argument they are born into a life of genetic acquired entitlements that is implied even if that comes subconsciously.
i am sure we are a mature and intelligent enough society to rid ourselves of this middle age system of subservience and replace it with a populace vote based elected system. for those who like the so called latent governmental and constitutional stability surely we can implement an elected "head of state" system that mirrors the genetic one we have now.

Genetically they are no different to the banjo playing inbreds of the deep South. The family is riddled with incest and mental illness.

 

[Gough]

Too many people not enough surnames in the Royal Houses of Europe. That's why they marry commoners now.

 

[Mike Smyth]

This guy campaigns for animal rights then does this.

But i suppose thats what you get with a basterd child.

and by the way, one of the most admired men in my view is his step father. He's been put through hell born into that family, the queen has personally seen his character trashed so she could remain queen.

They really are a grotesque family aren't they especially Prince Phillip renowned hunter and head of the WWF.

 

[Power Raid]

Alot of people doing it hard, alot of people suffered so she can live like she does.

When will you stop believing what you read on a meme

 

[skilts]

When will you stop believing what you read on a meme

There is a reason he calls him self 'little' graham.

 

[Roylion]

Genetically they are no different to the banjo playing inbreds of the deep South. The family is riddled with incest and mental illness.

Not these days..
Queen Victoria married her first cousin
Edward VII married his fourth cousin
George V married his second cousin once removed.
George VI married roughly his 18th cousin. They were both descendants of Robert II, the first Stewart King of Scotland in the 14th century.
Elizabeth II married her third cousin
Charles married his 11th cousin once removed
William married his 12th cousin, once removed

 

[The Punter]

So they all married cousins, right?

 

[Roylion]

So they all married cousins, right?

We're all cousins somewhere along the line, even if we can't always trace the exact line. Record keeping for royalty and nobility was obviously much better.

Incidentally cousin marriage is quite common.

Anthropologist Robin Fox of Rutgers University, suggests that it is likely that 80% of all marriages in history may have been between second cousins or closer.

 

[M Malice]

So they all married cousins, right?

We're all cousins somewhere along the line, even if we can't always trace the exact line. Record keeping for royalty and nobility was obviously much better.

Incidentally cousin marriage is quite common.

Anthropologist Robin Fox of Rutgers University, suggests that it is likely that 80% of all marriages in history may have been between second cousins or closer.

if you go back or sideways far enough we are all related. we all started as a single cell organism in a chemical cocktail a few billion years ago.

 

[Mike Smyth]

We're all cousins somewhere along the line, even if we can't always trace the exact line. Record keeping for royalty and nobility was obviously much better.

Incidentally cousin marriage is quite common.

Anthropologist Robin Fox of Rutgers University, suggests that it is likely that 80% of all marriages in history may have been between second cousins or closer.

80% - is he talking BC. Fairly certain my wife and I don't share the same great, great grandmother.

 

[The_Reaper]

80% - is he talking BC. Fairly certain my wife and I don't share the same great, great grandmother.

Throughout history most people lived in the same small village/town their whole life.

Evidence from Iceland seems to suggest that marrying your third cousin is optimal

 

[Roylion]

80% - is he talking BC.

Throughout all of human history.

And its happened for a few reasons

Until the past century, families tended to remain in the same area for generations, and men typically went courting no more than about seven-eight kilometres from home - the distance they could walk out and back on their day off from work.

Cousin marriages have also offered other practical benefits such marriages make it likelier that a shared set of cultural values will pass down intact to the children. Cousin marriages make it more likely that spouses will be compatible, particularly in an alien environment. Such marriages may be even more attractive for Pakistanis in Bradford, England, than back home in Kashmir. Intermarriage decreases the divorce rate and enhances the independence of wives, who retain the support of familiar friends and relatives. Thirdly, marrying cousins minimizes the need to break up family wealth from one generation to the next. The rich have frequently chosen cousin-marriage as a means to keep estates intact and consolidate power. European royalty in the past is one example, the Rothschilds are another.

It also appears that cousin marriages are not significantly riskier than any other marriage in terms of producing birth defects. In 2002 a team of scientists led by Robin L. Bennett, a genetic counselor at the University of Washington and the president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, published a study in the Journal of Genetic Counseling, that concluded that children of first cousins face about a 2 to 3 percent higher risk of birth defects than the population at large. To put it another way, first-cousin marriages entail roughly the same increased risk of genetic abnormality that a woman undertakes when she gives birth at 41 rather than at 30.

Fairly certain my wife and I don't share the same great, great grandmother.

Then you would be in the other 20%.

10% of all marriages in the world today are between first and second cousins. In some countries, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa and some parts of the Indian sub-continent first cousin marriages are as high as 25-30% of all marriages. In the past cousin-marriage has been far more widespread.

 

[The Punter]

In some countries, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa and some parts of the Indian sub-continent first cousin marriages are as high as 25-30% of all marriages. In the past cousin-marriage has been far more widespread.

Certainly areas of great governmental stability.

The system works, and it works now. King Charles may have things a little differently. And perhaps it is the system that makes it work, rather than the lucky people who were born into the family with the inherited business.

 

[Roylion]

Certainly areas of great governmental stability.

The system works, and it works now. King Charles may have things a little differently.

It may be King George. I can't see how it will be much different with Charles on the throne.

And perhaps it is the system that makes it work, rather than the lucky people who were born into the family with the inherited business.

Perhaps. But the system also contains the hereditary aspect.

"The monarchy is a political referee, not a political player, and there is a lot of sense in choosing the referee by a different principle from the players. It lessens the danger that the referee might try to start playing."
Earl Russell, The Spectator, 11th January 1997.

The hereditary aspect isn't that foreign to Australia anyway, or even to republican systems in general.

Many Australian private enterprises are already hereditary 'positions' (for want of a better word). Some are political dynasties, where family connections can assist considerably in being elected to public office. Packer, Murdoch, Downer, MacArthur, Wright, Myer, Durack and De Bortoli are examples of influential, hereditary Australian family enterprises that have had considerable influence on Australian society through various means, whether through retail, big business or politics. They're almost an Australian aristocracy, just without the titles. The Republic of the United States also has plenty of examples, with the Bush and Kennedy families prominent for example. The Kennedy family is widely spoken as almost the 'de-facto' American royal family. Indeed it seems that many Americans wish they were.

Australian family law is also built on the notion of inheritance and heredity. I fully expect to inherit my parents' parcels of property, and other assets, such as businesses when they pass on and they will be part of my 'inheritance' until I decide to dispose of them in some way. I understand that Australia is not a private enterprise and as such some may see the situation of the monarch "passing" on a whole country as being significantly different.

However the monarch can't dispose of the country as they please, nor do they 'rule' it or control it as they please. The monarch acts as a constitutional umpire with the hereditary aspect re-inforcing and complementing their impartiality and their ability to remain above/outside politics. As such, they owe their position to no political party, no ideology and / or no individual.

 

[The Punter]

The fact they owe their position to no one is a major factor in the system's effectiveness. But you're probably not going to get many on here agreeing with your effusive comments about the Murdochs and the Downers.

And the Prince of Wales has already shown he might not mind "getting involved".

 

[Roylion]

The fact they owe their position to no one is a major factor in the system's effectiveness. But you're probably not going to get many on here agreeing with your effusive comments about the Murdochs and the Downers.

And the Prince of Wales has already shown he might not mind "getting involved".

He's the Prince of Wales, not the monarch and thus has more freedom to exercise his personal opinions in public.

Even so, the Queen herself has the right "to be consulted, to encourage and to warn" her ministers via regular audiences with the Prime Minister. She just doesn't do that publicly.

 

[M Malice]

It may be King George. I can't see how it will be much different with Charles on the throne.



Perhaps. But the system also contains the hereditary aspect.

"The monarchy is a political referee, not a political player, and there is a lot of sense in choosing the referee by a different principle from the players. It lessens the danger that the referee might try to start playing."
Earl Russell, The Spectator, 11th January 1997.

The hereditary aspect isn't that foreign to Australia anyway, or even to republican systems in general.

Many Australian private enterprises are already hereditary 'positions' (for want of a better word). Some are political dynasties, where family connections can assist considerably in being elected to public office. Packer, Murdoch, Downer, MacArthur, Wright, Myer, Durack and De Bortoli are examples of influential, hereditary Australian family enterprises that have had considerable influence on Australian society through various means, whether through retail, big business or politics. They're almost an Australian aristocracy, just without the titles. The Republic of the United States also has plenty of examples, with the Bush and Kennedy families prominent for example. The Kennedy family is widely spoken as almost the 'de-facto' American royal family. Indeed it seems that many Americans wish they were.

Australian family law is also built on the notion of inheritance and heredity. I fully expect to inherit my parents' parcels of property, and other assets, such as businesses when they pass on and they will be part of my 'inheritance' until I decide to dispose of them in some way. I understand that Australia is not a private enterprise and as such some may see the situation of the monarch "passing" on a whole country as being significantly different.

However the monarch can't dispose of the country as they please, nor do they 'rule' it or control it as they please. The monarch acts as a constitutional umpire with the hereditary aspect re-inforcing and complementing their impartiality and their ability to remain above/outside politics. As such, they owe their position to no political party, no ideology and / or no individual.

i would assume the private enterprises and political dynasties don't draw large chunks of cash from the taxpayer as per the royal aristocracy.

 

[Roylion]

i would assume the private enterprises and political dynasties don't draw large chunks of cash from the taxpayer as per the royal aristocracy.

The Queen and Prince Charles' personal income does not come from the taxpayer, in as much as it is not funded from the British Treasury.

For example, the hereditary Duchy of Cornwall estate (54,521 hectares of land) provides income for the heir apparent. In 2010 this was about £17.1 million. The Duke of Cornwall (Charles) pays 40% of this amount as income tax to the British Treasury and uses about 60% of the remainder in public and charitable works. That gives him about £4 million a year, for which he would pay for himself, his wife, his sons and grand-children, including for example part of the costs of William's wedding a few years ago. That particular wedding did cost £10 million to which the British taxpayer contributed but the Royal family paid for the church service, music, flowers, decoration, reception and honeymoon out of their own personal income. Over half of the total cost (roughly £5 million) was for security (roughly the same as when the Pope last visited Britain). The other £3m was spent by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which organised everything from the flags and balloons lining the route to press access and stewarding. On the other hand the same wedding pumped about £620 million into the British economy. London itself received a £107 million boost.

The Duchy of Lancaster is personally owned by the Queen also has the same conditions...and provides personal income for her, which makes up most of the Queen's Privy Purse (which is her personal income). The Queen also pays income tax on the amount coming into her Privy Purse at the same rate as other British taxpayers in the same tax bracket - which is the highest tax bracket). The Queen uses the Privy Purse to cover the expenses of other members of the Royal Family, except for the family of the heir apparent (but can also claim such as tax deductions as well).

The monarch of course used to have far more money and originally funded the activities of the British government through the 'Public Purse'. However as the role of the government increased, the Public Purse could not cope with the extra expense.

So in 1760 it was decided that the whole cost of civil government should be provided by Parliament, with the crown surrendering most of the hereditary revenues of the Crown Estates. Under this new system, Parliament was responsible for the finances of the UK, including paying the Crown (i.e. the Queen) the Civil List allowance to meet the Sovereign's official expenses, such as staff salaries, State Visits, public engagements, ceremonial functions and the upkeep of the royal households.

In 2008 for example the Crown Estate paid the British Treasury £211.00 million in return for £7.9 million in Civil List payments to the monarch. Please note that Civil List income does not belong to the monarch, and is not available for the monarch's personal use. The Queen's consort (Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh) receives £359,000 per year from the Civil List. No other member of the Royal Family receives anything from the Civil List...they are paid for by the Queen's Privy Purse via Parliamentary annuities. It costs about £1,254,000 annually for the other members of the Royal family to complete their duties and this is paid for by Parliamentary annuities (which is refunded to the Treasury from the Queen's Privy Purse.)

Private enterprises and political dynasties don't draw from the public purse in the same way, but it can happen. In the US for example, presidential nominees of each major party (one whose candidate received more than 25% of the vote in the previous election) are eligible for a public grant of $81.78 million (2007 figure).

 

[The Punter]

Their land provides their income. How? Rent? Farming? Underpants?

 

[M Malice]

The Queen and Prince Charles' personal income does not come from the taxpayer, in as much as it is not funded from the British Treasury.

For example, the hereditary Duchy of Cornwall estate (54,521 hectares of land) provides income for the heir apparent. In 2010 this was about £17.1 million. The Duke of Cornwall (Charles) pays 40% of this amount as income tax to the British Treasury and uses about 60% of the remainder in public and charitable works. That gives him about £4 million a year, for which he would pay for himself, his wife, his sons and grand-children, including for example part of the costs of William's wedding a few years ago. That particular wedding did cost £10 million to which the British taxpayer contributed but the Royal family paid for the church service, music, flowers, decoration, reception and honeymoon out of their own personal income. Over half of the total cost (roughly £5 million) was for security (roughly the same as when the Pope last visited Britain). The other £3m was spent by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which organised everything from the flags and balloons lining the route to press access and stewarding. On the other hand the same wedding pumped about £620 million into the British economy. London itself received a £107 million boost.

The Duchy of Lancaster is personally owned by the Queen also has the same conditions...and provides personal income for her, which makes up most of the Queen's Privy Purse (which is her personal income). The Queen also pays income tax on the amount coming into her Privy Purse at the same rate as other British taxpayers in the same tax bracket - which is the highest tax bracket). The Queen uses the Privy Purse to cover the expenses of other members of the Royal Family, except for the family of the heir apparent (but can also claim such as tax deductions as well).

The monarch of course used to have far more money and originally funded the activities of the British government through the 'Public Purse'. However as the role of the government increased, the Public Purse could not cope with the extra expense.

So in 1760 it was decided that the whole cost of civil government should be provided by Parliament, with the crown surrendering most of the hereditary revenues of the Crown Estates. Under this new system, Parliament was responsible for the finances of the UK, including paying the Crown (i.e. the Queen) the Civil List allowance to meet the Sovereign's official expenses, such as staff salaries, State Visits, public engagements, ceremonial functions and the upkeep of the royal households.

In 2008 for example the Crown Estate paid the British Treasury £211.00 million in return for £7.9 million in Civil List payments to the monarch. Please note that Civil List income does not belong to the monarch, and is not available for the monarch's personal use. The Queen's consort (Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh) receives £359,000 per year from the Civil List. No other member of the Royal Family receives anything from the Civil List...they are paid for by the Queen's Privy Purse via Parliamentary annuities. It costs about £1,254,000 annually for the other members of the Royal family to complete their duties and this is paid for by Parliamentary annuities (which is refunded to the Treasury from the Queen's Privy Purse.)

Private enterprises and political dynasties don't draw from the public purse in the same way, but it can happen. In the US for example, presidential nominees of each major party (one whose candidate received more than 25% of the vote in the previous election) are eligible for a public grant of $81.78 million (2007 figure).

thanks for the information roylion. re. the duchy of cornwall and lancaster estates. did a quick google search, can not find how they came to be in royal hands in 1399 and 1337. did they acquire them through personal/family endeavor or were they bequeathed by implied compulsion? from the government of the time or a loyal subject?
i do not dispute that the institution of royalty generates some tourism dollars and sustains many tabloid newspapers and magazines, although i am sure people would find many other activities to spend their disposable income on that would benefit the economy.

 

[Roylion]

Their land provides their income. How? Rent? Farming? Underpants?

Most property is tenanted out, particularly farm land, while the forest land and holiday cottages are managed directly by the Duchy. It runs its own nursery which sells more than 4000 varieties of plants and the Duchy also rents out holiday cottages. Duchy Originals, Prince Charles own organic food range, now sells 230 products, sold in 30 countries from Australia to Japan. Sales of traditional oaten biscuits for example the first item in the Duchy brand have reached 70 million in total is also part of the Duchy of Cornwall's revenue.

 

[Roylion]

thanks for the information roylion. re. the duchy of cornwall and lancaster estates. did a quick google search, can not find how they came to be in royal hands in 1399

In 1399, the Duke of Lancaster became the King of England. Henry IV deposed his cousin Richard II (the son of the Black Prince). Henry's mother was Blanche of Lancaster, the heiress of the Earl of Lancaster. The first Earl of Lancaster was Edmund, the younger brother of King Edward I ('Edward Longshanks' of Braveheart fame)

and 1337. did they acquire them through personal/family endeavor or were they bequeathed by implied compulsion? from the government of the time or a loyal subject?

The duchy of Cornwall was established in 1337 out of the former Earldom of Cornwall by Edward III for his son and heir Edward, Prince of Wales (the Black Prince). Before then, the brother of William the Conqueror had been the Earl of Cornwall, as had the brother of Henry III and the brother of Edward III. A number of Breton nobility (relatives of William the Conqueror) had also been Earls of Cornwall intermittently.

i do not dispute that the institution of royalty generates some tourism dollars and sustains many tabloid newspapers and magazines, although i am sure people would find many other activities to spend their disposable income on that would benefit the economy.

Possibly.

 

[M Malice]

In 1399, the Duke of Lancaster became the King of England. Henry IV deposed his cousin Richard II (the son of the Black Prince). Henry's mother was Blanche of Lancaster, the heiress of the Earl of Lancaster. The first Earl of Lancaster was Edmund, the younger brother of King Edward I ('Edward Longshanks' of Braveheart fame)



The duchy of Cornwall was established in 1337 out of the former Earldom of Cornwall by Edward III for his son and heir Edward, Prince of Wales (the Black Prince). Before then, the brother of William the Conqueror had been the Earl of Cornwall, as had the brother of Henry III and the brother of Edward III. A number of Breton nobility (relatives of William the Conqueror) had also been Earls of Cornwall intermittently.



Possibly.

i disagree with you on the merits of the royal hereditary system.
but i think you need to go on some sort of mastermind type quiz show and specialize in "the history of the british royal family", or you have a very fast search engine and fingers.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

And as far as monarchists supposedly being a lover of all things British (or of British descent) that's not correct either. I'm mostly of Irish extraction with my forebears mostly being Irish convicts and Irish free-settlers. Some of them certainly had no love for the British Empire.

"Some of them" code for your family were British loyalists. Virtuality none of them in the Republic of Ireland today.

Michael Collins and Éamon de Valera would spit in your face.