The death of Queen Elizabeth II

[Romey 1878]

6 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Paywall on that Steve, can you copy/paste.

Think it’s free, you just have to put your email address in to create a free account. 

[MikeO]

8 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

Think it’s free, you just have to put your email address in to create a free account. 

Ah yes, but it seems I've reached my limit of free articles.

[Cornish Steve]

25 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Paywall on that Steve, can you copy/paste.

King Charles III built his own empire long before he inherited his mother’s.

Charles, who formally acceded to the British throne on Saturday, spent half a century turning his royal estate into a billion-dollar portfolio and one of the most lucrative moneymakers in the royal family business.

While his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, largely delegated responsibility for her portfolio, Charles was far more deeply involved in developing the private estate known as the Duchy of Cornwall. Over the past decade, he has assembled a large team of professional managers who increased his portfolio’s value and profits by about 50 percent.

Today, the Duchy of Cornwall owns the landmark cricket ground known as The Oval, lush farmland in the south of England, seaside vacation rentals, office space in London and a suburban supermarket depot. (A duchy is a territory traditionally governed by a duke or duchess.) The 130,000-acre real estate portfolio is nearly the size of Chicago and generates millions of dollars a year in rental income.

The conglomerate’s holdings are valued at roughly $1.4 billion, compared with around $949 million in the late queen’s private portfolio. These two estates represent a small fraction of the royal family’s estimated $28 billion fortune. On top of that, the family has personal wealth that remains a closely guarded secret.

As king, Charles will take over his mother’s portfolio and inherit a share of this untold personal fortune. While British citizens normally pay around 40 percent inheritance tax, King Charles gets this tax free. And he will pass control of his duchy to his elder son, William, to develop further without having to pay corporate taxes.

The growth in the royal family’s coffers and King Charles’s personal wealth over the past decade came at a time when Britain faced deep austerity budget cuts. Poverty levels soared, and the use of food banks almost doubled. His lifestyle of palaces and polo has long fueled accusations that he is out of touch with ordinary people. And he has at times been the unwitting symbol of that disconnect — such as when his limo was mobbed by students protesting rising tuition in 2010 or when he perched atop a golden throne in his royal finery this year to pledge help for struggling families.

Today, he ascends to the throne as the country buckles under a cost-of-living crisis that is expected to see poverty get even worse. A more divisive figure than his mother, King Charles is likely to give fresh energy to those questioning the relevance of a royal family at a time of public hardship.

Laura Clancy, the author of “Running the Family Firm: How the Monarchy Manages Its Image and Our Money,” said King Charles transformed the once-sleepy royal accounts.

“The duchy has been steadily commercializing over the past few decades,” Ms. Clancy said. “It is run like a commercial business with a C.E.O. and over 150 staff.” What used to be thought of as simply a “landed gentry pile of land” now operates like a corporation, she said.

 

The Duchy of Cornwall was established in the 14th century as a way to generate income for the heir to the throne and has essentially funded Charles’s private and official expenses. One example of its financial might: The $28 million profit he made from it last year dwarfed his official salary as prince, just over $1.1 million.

Piecing together the royal family’s assets is complicated, but the fortune falls generally into four groups.

First, and most prominent, is the Crown Estate, which oversees the assets of the monarchy through a board of directors. Charles, as king, will serve as its chairman, but he does not have final say over how the business is managed.

The estate, which official accounts value at more than $19 billion, includes shopping malls, busy streets in London’s West End and a growing number of wind farms. The royals are entitled to take only rental income from their official estates and may not profit from any sales, as they do not personally own the assets.

The estate’s profits, valued at about $363 million this year, are turned over to the Treasury, which in return gives the royal household a payment called a sovereign grant based on those profits — which must be topped up by the government if it is lower than the previous year. In 2017, the government increased the family’s payment to 25 percent of the profits to cover the costs of renovating Buckingham Palace.

The latest sovereign grant received by the royals was around $100 million, which the family, including Charles, has used for official royal duties, like visits, payroll and housekeeping. It does not cover the royals’ security costs, which is also paid by the government, but the cost is kept secret.

 

The next major pot of money is the Duchy of Lancaster. This $949 million portfolio is owned by whomever sits on the throne.

But the value of that trust is dwarfed by the Duchy of Cornwall, the third significant home of royal money, which Charles has long presided over as prince. Generating tens of millions of dollars a year, the duchy has funded his private and official spending, and has bankrolled William, the heir to the throne, and Kate, William’s wife.

It has done so without paying corporation taxes like most businesses in Britain are obliged to, and without publishing details about where the estate invests its money.

“When Charles took over at age 21, the duchy was not in a good financial state,” Marlene Koenig, a royal expert and writer, said, citing poor management and a lack of diversification. Charles took a more active role in the portfolio in the 1980s and began hiring experienced managers.

“It was at this time that the duchy became financially aggressive,” she said.

In 2017, leaked financial documents known as the Paradise Papers revealed that Charles’s duchy estate had invested millions in offshore companies, including a Bermuda-registered business run by one of his best friends.

The final pool of money, and the most secretive, is the family’s private fortune. According to the Rich List, the annual catalog of British wealth published in The Sunday Times, the queen had a net worth of about $430 million. That includes her personal assets, such as Balmoral Castle and Sandringham Estate, which she inherited from her father. Much of her personal wealth has been kept private.

King Charles has also made financial headlines unrelated to his wealth but tied to the charitable foundation that he chairs and operates in his name. His stewardship of the foundation has been marred by controversy, most recently this spring, when The Sunday Times reported that Charles had accepted 3 million euros in cash — including money stuffed in shopping bags and a suitcase — from a former Qatari prime minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani.

The money was for his foundation, which finances philanthropic causes around the world. Charles does not benefit financially from such contributions.

“He’s willing to take money from anybody, really, without questioning whether it’s the wise thing to do,” said Norman Baker, a former government minister and author of the book “ … And What Do You Do? What the Royal Family Don’t Want You to Know.”

Mr. Baker described Charles as the most progressive, caring member of the royal family. But he said he had also filed a police complaint accusing him of improperly selling honorary titles.

“That’s no way to behave for a royal,” he said, referring to an ongoing scandal over whether Charles had granted knighthood and citizenship to a Saudi businessman in exchange for donations to one of Charles’s charitable ventures.

Charles denied knowing about this, one of his top aides who was implicated stepped down, and the authorities began investigating. The king’s representatives did not respond to a message seeking comment.

Charles has also courted controversy with his outspoken views and campaigning. He has lobbied senior government ministers, including Tony Blair, through dozens of letters on issues from the Iraq war to alternative therapies. Though English law does not require it, royal protocol calls for political neutrality.

In his inaugural address on Saturday, the king indicated that he planned to step back from his outside endeavors. “It will no longer be possible for me to give so much of my time and energies to the charities and issues for which I care so deeply,” he said.

Ms. Clancy, the author, said the new king, in theory, would be expected to drop his lobbying and business ventures entirely.

“Whether that will pan out is a different question,” she said.

[StevO]

On 12/09/2022 at 22:23, Cornish Steve said:

I don't see why it would be a problem. Everyone could log in to their "tax" account and allocate percentages for their tax amount. Change it whenever you wish. These numbers would be used to assign your tax money with every paycheck. Technology-wise, it would be very simple. It's no different than assigning how your 401(k) deductions are assigned to stock funds here in the US.

One day a few too many people make a change, the next day a department doesn’t have enough to support all of its staff. Mass redundancy.

The next day, too many people move the money back. Now that department needs to hire. It begins the expensive and time consuming process of recruitment. 

During the recruitment the output of that department hasn’t improved, the new staff aren’t on board within a couple of months as it takes time, so people move the funding again. They now can’t afford to hire the people they are in the process of hiring. These people have already handed in notice in old jobs and don’t have a new job to go to. 
 

In any form of business there needs to be a level of certainty and consistency. It’s not practical for money/funding to just be moved on a whim. Someone, or a team of people, have to make these decisions and make them for a prolonged period of time for them to work. There is a reason no countries do it like this. 

[Palfy]

4 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/world/europe/king-charles-wealth.html

By the way, did you know that if anyone dies in Cornwall without a will, everything they own passes automatically to the Duke of Cornwall?

If someone dies in the Duchies of Cornwall or Lancaster without making a will or having any heirs, the money goes to now William and the King respectfully if any where else in the UK it goes to the Crown meaning the Government. The money is then but into an account for a certain amount of time in case heir’s come forward to claim it, if no heirs are found or come forward in the allotted time the money goes to the Crown/Government who do what ever they wish with it, in the case of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster the money doesn’t go to now William and the King it goes into a benevolent fund which occurs interest and the funds are used to support charities in the area’s of the Duchy it came from, which I would say is far better for the area’s of Cornwall and Lancaster than the rest of the country who’s unclaimed estates go into the Government's big melting pot and get no doubt wasted. 
Steve I’m slowly losing any respect I have had for you as a person, you are deliberately going out of your way to create fake stories in the most sensational way you can, you statement of did you know is a disgusting attempt to try and make people think the Duchy of Cornwall keeps the money of anyone who dies without a will for themselves, what a shocking and disgusting accusation to make in an attempt to smear any good the Monarchy you dislike does. That in my book is evil. 

[Hafnia]

15 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/world/europe/king-charles-wealth.html

By the way, did you know that if anyone dies in Cornwall without a will, everything they own passes automatically to the Duke of Cornwall?

As stated by Palfy… and sourced separately by myself.  Charles “chooses to donate all monies from bona vacantia (which is where such monies go) to the Duchy of Cornwall Benevolent Fund, from which donations are made to local communities in the South West of England”. 
 

ffs Steve, I’m pretty sure you would be aware of that fact stated above.   We get that you have an agenda but behave, I like to think you are better than that.

[MikeO]

10 hours ago, Palfy said:

By the way, did you know that if anyone dies in Cornwall without a will, everything they own passes automatically to the Duke of Cornwall?

Only if they don't have surviving relatives.

[Hafnia]

28 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Only if they don't have surviving relatives.

And even then it goes to the benevolent fund which goes to southwest communities.

I like Steve but he is being naughty here, I don’t doubt for one second a bloke as clued up on this wasn’t aware of this fact. 

[Cornish Steve]

33 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

And even then it goes to the benevolent fund which goes to southwest communities.

I like Steve but he is being naughty here, I don’t doubt for one second a bloke as clued up on this wasn’t aware of this fact. 

The point is that huge sums of money go to the Duchy, an amount that far outstrips the Duke's supposed annual allowance. It's been a precedent in recent years that some amount goes to charity, but you can afford it when all the profits pass from one generation to the next with no death taxes.

The point is I was commenting on the NY Times article, which was largely about the Duchy of Cornwall. I'll stop commenting until the current Royals' press coverage dies down. April maybe?

[Cornish Steve]

11 hours ago, Palfy said:

If someone dies in the Duchies of Cornwall or Lancaster without making a will or having any heirs, the money goes to now William and the King respectfully if any where else in the UK it goes to the Crown meaning the Government. The money is then but into an account for a certain amount of time in case heir’s come forward to claim it, if no heirs are found or come forward in the allotted time the money goes to the Crown/Government who do what ever they wish with it, in the case of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster the money doesn’t go to now William and the King it goes into a benevolent fund which occurs interest and the funds are used to support charities in the area’s of the Duchy it came from, which I would say is far better for the area’s of Cornwall and Lancaster than the rest of the country who’s unclaimed estates go into the Government's big melting pot and get no doubt wasted. 
Steve I’m slowly losing any respect I have had for you as a person, you are deliberately going out of your way to create fake stories in the most sensational way you can, you statement of did you know is a disgusting attempt to try and make people think the Duchy of Cornwall keeps the money of anyone who dies without a will for themselves, what a shocking and disgusting accusation to make in an attempt to smear any good the Monarchy you dislike does. That in my book is evil. 

Oh come off it, Palfy. Evil is joining Jeffrey Epstein and his under-age victims.

[Hafnia]

16 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

The point is that huge sums of money go to the Duchy, an amount that far outstrips the Duke's supposed annual allowance. It's been a precedent in recent years that some amount goes to charity, but you can afford it when all the profits pass from one generation to the next with no death taxes.

The point is I was commenting on the NY Times article, which was largely about the Duchy of Cornwall. I'll stop commenting until the current Royals' press coverage dies down. April maybe?

 

16 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

The point is that huge sums of money go to the Duchy, an amount that far outstrips the Duke's supposed annual allowance. It's been a precedent in recent years that some amount goes to charity, but you can afford it when all the profits pass from one generation to the next with no death taxes.

The point is I was commenting on the NY Times article, which was largely about the Duchy of Cornwall. I'll stop commenting until the current Royals' press coverage dies down. April maybe?

The point is you purposely told half the story to create a sensational story, which was incredibly misleading. 
 

nothing will stop you commentating your anti English posts.  Considering most of us on here are English it’s very disrespectful, we have people from all over the world with the USA well represented. Have some respect Steve, not all of us are monarchists but don’t treat us like we are stupid either…. Some of us can use Google. 

[Palfy]

15 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

 

The point is you purposely told half the story to create a sensational story, which was incredibly misleading. 
 

nothing will stop you commentating your anti English posts.  Considering most of us on here are English it’s very disrespectful, we have people from all over the world with the USA well represented. Have some respect Steve, not all of us are monarchs but don’t treat us like we are stupid either…. Some of us can use Google. 

100% a shocking post to try to deceive. 

[Palfy]

1 hour ago, MikeO said:

Only if they don't have surviving relatives.

If you read on I did say if no heirs to their State could be found within a certain time frame or make themselves known. There are companies that try to find heirs of unclaimed estates for a hefty percentage of the estate. But not as Steve tried to sensationalise and have us believe that if someone in Cornwall didn’t leave a will everything they own automatically goes to the Duke of Cornwall. 

[MikeO]

45 minutes ago, Palfy said:

If you read on I did say if no heirs to their State could be found within a certain time frame or make themselves known.

Read a post by you? Now there's a novel idea, never bothered before

[Palfy]

3 hours ago, MikeO said:

Read a post by you? Now there's a novel idea, never bothered before

nearly spat me red wine out. 

[MikeO]

 

[MikeO]

11 minutes ago, RPG said:

That link is out of date Mike and, in several instances, now plain wrong or misleading due an outbreak of common sense taking place.

It was yesterday, and wasn't misleading or wrong at the time, the fact that people have seen sense doesn't alter the point the presenter was making at the time; in fact it reinforces it.

[Gwlad]

I like having a monarchy and QE has been a constant throughout my life including waving a flag outside my infant school when I was 5 and going to a Buckingham Palace Garden Party. However I think the current mourning will not be appropriate moving forward in the 21st century. 48 hours after the passing hold back, reflect etc thereafter the media can produce what they want to cover lying in state etc. but don't impinge on other general day to day happenings. Bank Holiday for the funeral so that everyone gets the chance to pay respect as they wish, should allow for all to observe or stand away.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Romey 1878]

I’m not entirely sure the word evil is appropriate, or accurate, for what Cornish said.

Yeah, what he said was incorrect but evil is very strong. Surely none of you really think he’s evil?

Were you being evil, @RPG, when you said the UK relies heavily on Russian gas even though it accounts for very little of our gas supply? No, you just had it wrong.

@Shukesaside, we’re all grown ups on here and we can discuss things without that sort of language.

It’d have been more suitable to call him a dick head (or a plum for any that don’t like to swear) .

[dunlopp9987]

Fast forward to 1:45. God I love Trevor Noah.

 

[Matt]

Evil : adjective

"profoundly immoral and wicked."

Errrr, no. Not even close. People disagree, debate, argue. The written format that is not real-time isn’t the easiest to get across complete and perfect messages on footballing topics, let alone sensitive material. 

Steve may not have chosen the best time, although it makes sense, but he's entitled to his views and whilst they are very clearly anti-English at times (I'm often part of the club too), it's far from evil. Disagree? Take it up with OED and meanwhile find a better adjective.

Oh, and "national" mourning? Not me. I'm trying to find information about a 9 year old girl who was shot and killed in her home, but that's nowhere to be seen in the media because a well respected, multimillionaire 96 year old died of old age in her castle. Queen gets a bank holiday, Olivia's school are going to wear the same top in memory. Ironically, I think the Queen would've much preferred that. Equality is a joke. 

I've stayed out of this so far because the monarchy means nothing to me and, frankly, the Queen would be utterly embarrassed by this whole thing. I'll likely avoid the thread after this. But She famously didn't like fuss and is well known for politely trying to understand and discuss with people of a contrary position. Take the same approach or face a time out please. 

 

[Palfy]

Good can be defined as correct, moral or pleasing. Evil can be defined as harmful, wicked or immoral, I used the word evil to describe what Steve said because I believe it fell into the category  of harmful against the monarchy and the many people who enjoy and respect the monarchy, wicked because he deliberately set out to deceive with his post, and immoral because for me he has shown a lack of morality by posting what he said in the manner in which he did, at a time of great sorrow for a family and nation in mourning, whether you are a Monarchist or Republican please try to show some decency and respect, I will be honest and say I have genuinely found that the majority of both sides of the fence have done so, which is a credit to moral compass of the British people. 

[Matt]

10 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Good can be defined as correct, moral or pleasing. Evil can be defined as harmful, wicked or immoral, I used the word evil to describe what Steve said because I believe it fell into the category  of harmful against the monarchy and the many people who enjoy and respect the monarchy, wicked because he deliberately set out to deceive with his post, and immoral because for me he has shown a lack of morality by posting what he said in the manner in which he did, at a time of great sorrow for a family and nation in mourning, whether you are a Monarchist or Republican please try to show some decency and respect, I will be honest and say I have genuinely found that the majority of both sides of the fence have done so, which is a credit to moral compass of the British people. 

I quoted the definition, harmful isn't in it. I personally find it profoundly immoral at the idea of a kids shooting being old news, not going to comment on the moral compass of the British people there...

@Cornish Steveplease try to be more understanding of the other members here in what is, for some, a sensitive time. The rest of you, move on or put him on ignore. I'll just lock the thread if this continues. No, TT isn't a democracy.

[Palfy]

2 minutes ago, Matt said:

I quoted the definition, harmful isn't in it. I personally find it profoundly immoral at the idea of a kids shooting being old news, not going to comment on the moral compass of the British people there...

@Cornish Steveplease try to be more understanding of the other members here in what is, for some, a sensitive time. The rest of you, move on or put him on ignore. I'll just lock the thread if this continues. No, TT isn't a democracy.

Harmful most definitely is in it, well it was when I looked at it on Google a few days ago before making my post, I don’t find the British people responsible for a kids shooting being old news, that is entirely down to the media who have and I agree with you wrongly forgotten what we most care about, or a majority of us at least. For me you can shut the thread down I know it isn’t a democracy and I know that the mods are Republicans, if closed you will know doubt save my eyes from the sensationalism of half truths about our Monarchy from someone who has for years shown a huge disrespect for the English and is now using the death of the Queen as another stick to beat us with. 

[Romey 1878]

With all due respect, how do you know he wilfully misled anyone? I don't think we're all privy to what Steve does or does not know about things.

@Cornish Steve, did you know the reality of things when you said what you said?

Do you know what, even if he did then I don't think that makes him evil. Every single person in here will have twisted things in an attempt to paint the picture they wanted to paint and I don't think that makes any of us evil. It makes us a bit of a cunt for a bit, but evil? No, that's ridiculous.

[Palfy]

9 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

With all due respect, how do you know he wilfully misled anyone? I don't think we're all privy to what Steve does or does not know about things.

@Cornish Steve, did you know the reality of things when you said what you said?

Do you know what, even if he did then I don't think that makes him evil. Every single person in here will have twisted things in an attempt to paint the picture they wanted to paint and I don't think that makes any of us evil. It makes us a bit of a cunt for a bit, but evil? No, that's ridiculous.

Well I won’t go on about any more other than to say my opinion is as valid as anyones and I have laid why I believe what I have written, and finally this thread should be about the Queen. 

[Romey 1878]

1 minute ago, Palfy said:

Well I won’t go on about any more other than to say my opinion is as valid as anyones and I have laid why I believe what I have written, and finally this thread should be about the Queen. 

There are a lot of queens in here, so I think it's stayed perfectly on topic for a change .

[Hafnia]

Let’s get things straight, if what Steve did was evil then there needs to be new words created for pieces of shit who walk the planet.

Deceitful is the correct word. Let’s not get carried away. It’s as though peteo is making a return to the forum. 

[MikeO]

On 16/09/2022 at 09:31, Palfy said:

Well I won’t go on about any more other than to say my opinion is as valid as anyones and I have laid why I believe what I have written, and finally this thread should be about the Queen. 

It is about the queen, more specifically about her death and people's thoughts on the event itself and the consequences of it; we have royalist and republican members and anyone is free to have their say, within reason.

If a royalist had wanted to start an "in memorium" thread where people could only write positives, they could've done so; still could in fact. Would be closed at the end of official mourning.

[Palfy]

4 minutes ago, MikeO said:

It is about the queen, more specifically about her death and people's thoughts on the event itself and the consequences of it; we have royalist and republican members and anyone is free to have their say, within reason.

If a royalist had wanted to start an "in memorandum" thread where people could only write positives, they could've done so; still could in fact. Would be closed at the end of official mourning.

Do you think people have been outside of reason? And when the Queen as been laid to rest I feel it would be respectful to close this thread in her name, and we can always start other threads if people care to discussing other royal’s and the monarchy.