DS Forums

 
 

Queen Unwell


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Yesterday, 06:32
Phoenix Lazarus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13,888
If it carries on unless George passes it Charlotte or something else happens there won't be another Queen as Head Of State for over 100 Years
You're assuming William's son will live past 100.
Phoenix Lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old Yesterday, 06:41
batgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
I think you're wandering wildly off the point here and I really have no idea where you're going with any of this.

All I asked was for a straightforward answer to two points raised by another poster. I haven't had a satisfactory answer to either of them, which is why I asked for clarification on what was meant by these purported examples of the Queen's "piss poor" behaviour.

I haven't actually expressed a personal opinion on the Queen or the Royal Family one way or another so I don't know why you're rambling on about the Kardashians all of a sudden. What on earth do any of them have to do with this topic?

Of course you've had a satisfactory answer, just refused to accept it. Not paying tax and being extremely casual either with an innocent man's liberty or the truth is pretty piss poor and, as per my point, more people would be highly critical if Bet Windsor wasn't queen.
batgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 07:05
eggchen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,554
Of course you've had a satisfactory answer, just refused to accept it. Not paying tax and being extremely casual either with an innocent man's liberty or the truth is pretty piss poor and, as per my point, more people would be highly critical if Bet Windsor wasn't queen.
I'm not sure that paying tax voluntarily that isn't legally due qualifies as piss poor behaviour.
eggchen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 07:39
batgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
I'm not sure that paying tax voluntarily that isn't legally due qualifies as piss poor behaviour.

She didn't pay any tax for decades. Then the mood of the country changed enough for her to agree to pay some tax. No one knows if it's all or most of what should be paid or just some token gesture to allow her to say that she does 'pay tax'.

We heavily criticise those who use every legal loophole to minimize their tax bill. Gary Barlow, from memory, was one of the people who have relatively recently been accused of aggressive tax avoidance - there were calls for the queen to strip him of his OBE (or whatever it was he'd been given). He ended up apologising and reassuring the public that he was getting new accountants.

Do you not see the hypocrisy? Do you think aggressively exploiting her privileged position to the extent where she is above the law, for financial gain, is an example of good behaviour?

It's also worth remembering that while royalists tell us how dutiful and devoted she is to this country, there are thousands of people in her age group, pensioners, who have spent a lifetime paying every last bit of tax the revenue could squeeze out of them, who are now having to choose between heating and food. Thousands die because they can't afford both. So yes, in my opinion, one of the richest women on the planet getting herself a deal to deprive the treasury of millions (some estimate over a billion by now) is pretty piss poor. She got the deal because she's queen and some people defend it because she's queen, but once the royal aspect of it is stripped away, what's left is pretty grim.
batgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 07:43
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,692
I'm not sure that paying tax voluntarily that isn't legally due qualifies as piss poor behaviour.
But a head of state using their position to negotiate that tax exemption in the first place (when her father/grandfathers etc had not done the same) might not be seen as the best behaviour.
Or indeed the best example to her subjects.
Piss poor is not a term I would use; 'bad show' is appropriate however IMO.

Last edited by Richard46 : Yesterday at 07:46. Reason: accuracy
Richard46 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 10:22
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,742
Of course you've had a satisfactory answer, just refused to accept it. Not paying tax and being extremely casual either with an innocent man's liberty or the truth is pretty piss poor and, as per my point, more people would be highly critical if Bet Windsor wasn't queen.
As I said before, she does pay tax.

You refer to her "piss poor behaviour" regarding the Burrell case but you have not actually stated what your criticism of her is.

Why can't you just say categorically what it is that you're accusing her of, instead of refering to it coyly as "piss poor behaviour" and then pretending you've actually stated what it was?

Unless you make it clear what you think she has done wrong and why, how can anyone be sure what your specific point is?
Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 10:36
blueblade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,207
Blueblade, you just posted nobody was saying there was no need for a democratic choice.
That was in response to Richard's somewhat odd remark, which stemmed directly from what I said about not abolishing the monarchy until there had been a referendum on the issue.

Yet you seem to be defending the status quo of the next three heads of state after Elizabeth II, already being chosen by hereditary succession ?
Simply because there has been no collective call for their abolition, and also because opinion polls have showed consistent solid support for their continuation.

I would agree that if public disquiet over the continuation of the Royal Family reached anything like critical mass, then yes, a referendum would be the correct way forward.

Currently though, as the poll in this thread, posted yesterday in the politics forum shows, there is a 2:1 majority for those in favour of their continuance. That reflects national opinion on the issue.

What's your personal view?
blueblade is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:03
batgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
As I said before, she does pay tax.
She didn't for decades and only agreed to pay some (and we don't know whether what she pays is in any way even close to what her tax bill should be) because attention was brought to it and it was expedient for her to agree to something.

Do you think it's good behaviour for a head of state to negotiate for themselves, using their position, to be above the law, for massive personal financial gain?

You refer to her "piss poor behaviour" regarding the Burrell case but you have not actually stated what your criticism of her is.

Why can't you just say categorically what it is that you're accusing her of, instead of refering to it coyly as "piss poor behaviour" and then pretending you've actually stated what it was

Unless you make it clear what you think she has done wrong and why, how can anyone be sure what your specific point is?
I assume that most people are aware of what happened. The court case was reported on extensively. It should be pretty obvious that I can't be suggesting that Bet lied (as you asked) because how on earth would I know. However I can and did say, clearly and with no 'coyly' about it, that her behaviour, going on all the facts that were reported, was very poor indeed. Piss poor, one could say. Crap. Very bad. Disgraceful. Etc. Anyone else behaving like that would have been widely criticised.

If you spent that particular year out of the country, in a coma or on some kind of a news blackout, the overview is this. Some time after Di's death, Paul Burrell was accused of stealing items from her home. He insisted that Bet Windsor had given him her permission to take the items away for safekeeping. She said nothing and a very prominent court case began. As it continued, and as things started to look not so great for Burrell, it emerged that once on the stand he was going to be very frank about what he knew about the royal family. At that point Bet suddenly, and after weeks and weeks of amnesia, remembered giving her permission and that was that.

So my incredibly obvious criticism of her behaviour is that she was either not bothered enough about dragging an innocent man through the courts to have a good think about probably the only proper conversation she had had with him, or she stepped in and lied to stop her family's dirty laundry being washed in public, and maybe even freed a guilty man by doing so. I don't know which, so I'm not suggesting she lied, but either way, crappy. Etc.
batgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:19
Trulytrue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 242
That was in response to Richard's somewhat odd remark, which stemmed directly from what I said about not abolishing the monarchy until there had been a referendum on the issue.



Simply because there has been no collective call for their abolition, and also because opinion polls have showed consistent solid support for their continuation.

I would agree that if public disquiet over the continuation of the Royal Family reached anything like critical mass, then yes, a referendum would be the correct way forward.

Currently though, as the poll in this thread, posted yesterday in the politics forum shows, there is a 2:1 majority for those in favour of their continuance. That reflects national opinion on the issue.

What's your personal view?
Are these the same polls that said that we would be staying in the EU, that the people disliked Corbyn and that Clinton would win the elections?


Seriously though I can only speak for myself and those I know in real life. 20 years ago I would have said if we went to referendum she would not be going anywhere but this last few years I would say she would be gone if it went to a referendum, Not only have my own views on her changed but so have the views of most people I know .

I used to repeat the same old stuff that people here are repeating but the truth of it is, is they were gone tourism would not change one bit .
When I look to see how the poor, homeless and disabled are treated and see her doing and saying nothing about it it angers me greatly and please do not tell me she is not allowed to do or say anything as we all know she and the rest do when it suits them to do so.
Trulytrue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:36
blueblade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,207
Are these the same polls that said that we would be staying in the EU, that the people disliked Corbyn and that Clinton would win the elections?
Whilst it's true to say that some recent opinion polls have been way wide of the mark, we should also remember that opinion polls on the Royal Family have shown the same level of response for many years.

Interestingly, that 2:1 in favour, is reversed in Scotland, where it's 2:1 against. Ironic, given that most of the loyalists in Northern Ireland, are descended from lowland Scots.

Still, the Scots had their chance at independence, which would by default mean no more Queen for them, and bottled it.

Seriously though I can only speak for myself and those I know in real life. 20 years ago I would have said if we went to referendum she would not be going anywhere but this last few years I would say she would be gone if it went to a referendum, Not only have my own views on her changed but so have the views of most people I know .

I used to repeat the same old stuff that people here are repeating but the truth of it is, is they were gone tourism would not change one bit .
When I look to see how the poor, homeless and disabled are treated and see her doing and saying nothing about it it angers me greatly and please do not tell me she is not allowed to do or say anything as we all know she and the rest do when it suits them to do so.
Do you think things would be any better for the poor, homeless and disabled if the Royal Family were abolished?
blueblade is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:37
VicnBob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 948
She didn't for decades and only agreed to pay some (and we don't know whether what she pays is in any way even close to what her tax bill should be) because attention was brought to it and it was expedient for her to agree to something.

Do you think it's good behaviour for a head of state to negotiate for themselves, using their position, to be above the law, for massive personal financial gain?



I assume that most people are aware of what happened. The court case was reported on extensively. It should be pretty obvious that I can't be suggesting that Bet lied (as you asked) because how on earth would I know. However I can and did say, clearly and with no 'coyly' about it, that her behaviour, going on all the facts that were reported, was very poor indeed. Piss poor, one could say. Crap. Very bad. Disgraceful. Etc. Anyone else behaving like that would have been widely criticised.

If you spent that particular year out of the country, in a coma or on some kind of a news blackout, the overview is this. Some time after Di's death, Paul Burrell was accused of stealing items from her home. He insisted that Bet Windsor had given him her permission to take the items away for safekeeping. She said nothing and a very prominent court case began. As it continued, and as things started to look not so great for Burrell, it emerged that once on the stand he was going to be very frank about what he knew about the royal family. At that point Bet suddenly, and after weeks and weeks of amnesia, remembered giving her permission and that was that.

So my incredibly obvious criticism of her behaviour is that she was either not bothered enough about dragging an innocent man through the courts to have a good think about probably the only proper conversation she had had with him, or she stepped in and lied to stop her family's dirty laundry being washed in public, and maybe even freed a guilty man by doing so. I don't know which, so I'm not suggesting she lied, but either way, crappy. Etc.
This would appear to be your opinion of what actually happened, not what was reported at that time.
VicnBob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:42
Mark.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,356
Still, the Scots had their chance at independence, which would by default mean no more Queen for them, and bottled it.
Where do you get that idea from?

The Union of the Crowns predates the Act of Union by over a hundred years. So "by default", The Queen would have remained Head of State in an independent Scotland.
Mark. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:50
jjwales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,429
Where do you get that idea from?

The Union of the Crowns predates the Act of Union by over a hundred years. So "by default", The Queen would have remained Head of State in an independent Scotland.
And there was no sign that the SNP wanted to get rid of the Queen after independence.
jjwales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:52
blueblade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,207
Where do you get that idea from?

The Union of the Crowns predates the Act of Union by over a hundred years. So "by default", The Queen would have remained Head of State in an independent Scotland.
Indeed so, good call.

Interestingly enough, just looking at another link it would appear that support for the Royal Family is higher than what I thought, not only amongst the Scots, but over the UK as a whole, where it stands at 77% compared to 17% against.

Members of the Radical Independence movement - a coalition of activists on the left - would also like to enable Scotland to become a republic if it wants to do so.

Earlier this month, a YouGov poll suggested 54% of Scots favour keeping the monarchy if Scotland votes "Yes", compared with 39% who would like to see it scrapped. Among SNP voters this narrows to 46% compared with 39%, though the survey had a smaller sample size.

Although these figures indicate the monarchy still has more fans than it does detractors, in the UK as a whole support is higher, at 77%, and opposition is lower, at 17%, according to Ipsos MORI's latest survey.

Even if Mr Salmond gets his preference and the Queen remains head of state in an independent Scotland, her role would be likely to change, according to director of UCL's Constitution Unit, Professor Robert Hazell.

He says the Queen's duties would "depend on the role provided for head of state in Scotland's new written constitution".

The Scottish government has specified that under independence, the people of Scotland would be sovereign, whereas at present sovereignty rests with the Crown in Parliament.
Something else for the minority anti Royalists to consider.
blueblade is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:32
batgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
This would appear to be your opinion of what actually happened, not what was reported at that time.
It's a pretty accurate overview of what happened. Obviously I've missed out a great deal of detail but the main facts are solid. He was accused of theft, he maintained she'd given her permission, court case started, he said he was going to talk frankly, and at that point her memory suddenly returned.

The only thing that can be suggested in her support is that she genuinely forgot and even a prominent court case didn't jog her memory until just after Burrell said what he said. But that's stretching credibility past breaking point, in my opinion (< yes, that bit is my opinion).
batgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:39
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,742
She didn't for decades and only agreed to pay some (and we don't know whether what she pays is in any way even close to what her tax bill should be) because attention was brought to it and it was expedient for her to agree to something.

Do you think it's good behaviour for a head of state to negotiate for themselves, using their position, to be above the law, for massive personal financial gain?



I assume that most people are aware of what happened. The court case was reported on extensively. It should be pretty obvious that I can't be suggesting that Bet lied (as you asked) because how on earth would I know. However I can and did say, clearly and with no 'coyly' about it, that her behaviour, going on all the facts that were reported, was very poor indeed. Piss poor, one could say. Crap. Very bad. Disgraceful. Etc. Anyone else behaving like that would have been widely criticised.

If you spent that particular year out of the country, in a coma or on some kind of a news blackout, the overview is this. Some time after Di's death, Paul Burrell was accused of stealing items from her home. He insisted that Bet Windsor had given him her permission to take the items away for safekeeping. She said nothing and a very prominent court case began. As it continued, and as things started to look not so great for Burrell, it emerged that once on the stand he was going to be very frank about what he knew about the royal family. At that point Bet suddenly, and after weeks and weeks of amnesia, remembered giving her permission and that was that.

So my incredibly obvious criticism of her behaviour is that she was either not bothered enough about dragging an innocent man through the courts to have a good think about probably the only proper conversation she had had with him, or she stepped in and lied to stop her family's dirty laundry being washed in public, and maybe even freed a guilty man by doing so. I don't know which, so I'm not suggesting she lied, but either way, crappy. Etc.
All monarchs since George III (I think) have had individually negotiated financial arrangements in line with the ways in which the funding of the monarchy has undergone numerous changes over the decades and centuries since then. The Monarch paying taxes has only been a voluntary arrangement and the specifics have changed each time the Crown passed to the next monarch. So, whilst you may choose to accuse the Queen of tax dodging, this would be wrong as she could not have "dodged" something she was not required to do. The choice to pay taxes on her private income from 1993 was a voluntary one. It seems you would prefer to ignore her choice to pay voluntarily and instead accuse her of dodging a non-existent arrangement.

Since 2012, the arrangements put in place for the funding of the Monarchy are intended to be ongoing and reviewed every few years, rather than being reign-specific as previously.

Your comments which you have finally shared about the Burrell case, are apparently largely your opinion, to which you are of course entitled... but they don't indicate anything much other than an understandable wish not to become embroiled in or otherwise compromise the process that dispenses justice in her name as monarch.
Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:51
Trulytrue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 242
Whilst it's true to say that some recent opinion polls have been way wide of the mark, we should also remember that opinion polls on the Royal Family have shown the same level of response for many years.

Interestingly, that 2:1 in favour, is reversed in Scotland, where it's 2:1 against. Ironic, given that most of the loyalists in Northern Ireland, are descended from lowland Scots.

Still, the Scots had their chance at independence, which would by default mean no more Queen for them, and bottled it.



Do you think things would be any better for the poor, homeless and disabled if the Royal Family were abolished?
No but the divide between rich and poor is getting wider. How can we have a rich queen while people are dying in doorways or wrapped in blankets in chairs due to being cold and unnourished. Maybe I would have more kindness towards them if they stood up for their subjects but they dont, but act like they also have to tighten their belts a notch or two

I don't give a hoot for the so called polls I live in the world where I have see real opinions changing rather than people ticking a box.

I see 100s polls on Corbyn being unelectable while at the same time 1000s on marches and groups protesting about losing the right to vote. Even though they had to pay £25 they still did it, and also paid towards shopping for others to be able to have the right to vote for the person they wanted to be a leader

Now I would not trust any official poll as all the ones I see elsewhere told a very different story
Trulytrue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:55
johnF1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,108
She didn't pay any tax for decades. Then the mood of the country changed enough for her to agree to pay some tax. No one knows if it's all or most of what should be paid or just some token gesture to allow her to say that she does 'pay tax'.
I'm not sure I understand the logic of the Queen paying tax tbh. Because doesn't she receive a load of income from the treasury?

Surely it would make more sense to just give her less (or no) tax payers money in the first place rather than giving her a load with one hand and then taking some of it back with the other?
johnF1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:57
batgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
All monarchs since George III (I think) have had individually negotiated financial arrangements in line with the ways in which the funding of the monarchy has undergone numerous changes over the decades and centuries since then. The Monarch paying taxes has only been a voluntary arrangement and the specifics have changed each time the Crown passed to the next monarch. So, whilst you may choose to accuse the Queen of tax dodging, this would be wrong as she could not have "dodged" something she was not required to do. The choice to pay taxes on her private income from 1993 was a voluntary one. It seems you would prefer to ignore her choice to pay voluntarily and instead accuse her of dodging a non-existent arrangement.

Since 2012, the arrangements put in place for the funding of the Monarchy are intended to be ongoing and reviewed every few years, rather than being reign-specific as previously.
So do you think it's good behaviour for the queen to use her position to put herself above the law, in order to make very significant, personal financial gains?

Your comments which you have finally shared about the Burrell case, are apparently largely your opinion, to which you are of course entitled... but they don't indicate anything much other than an understandable wish not to become embroiled in or otherwise compromise the process that dispenses justice in her name as monarch.
I eventually described the main facts surrounding the case because you seemed to be unaware of them.

As to the last bit - again, it just proves my point.
batgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 13:00
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,742
I'm not sure I understand the logic of the Queen paying tax tbh. Because doesn't she receive a load of income from the treasury?

Surely it would make more sense to just give her less (or no) tax payers money in the first place rather than giving her a load with one hand and then taking some of it back with the other?
It's kind of the other way round.

The profits from the Crown Estates - paid to the Treasury - come from the Monarch and in return, the Monarch gets the Sovereign Grant to meet the costs of the Monarchy. None of it is hers personally. It belongs to " the crown".

She pays tax on her private income.
Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 13:02
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,742
So do you think it's good behaviour for the queen to use her position to put herself above the law, in order to make very significant, personal financial gains?



I eventually described the main facts surrounding the case because you seemed to be unaware of them.

As to the last bit - again, it just proves my point.
She hasn't put herself above the law at all.

You haven't proved anything.
Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 13:03
batgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
I'm not sure I understand the logic of the Queen paying tax tbh. Because doesn't she receive a load of income from the treasury?

Surely it would make more sense to just give her less (or no) tax payers money in the first place rather than giving her a load with one hand and then taking some of it back with the other?
Part of the problem is that most of her financial stuff is shrouded in secrecy, so no one really knows, apart from her closest financial advisors, how much tax she ought to be paying and on what. But just one example from recent history is the inheritance tax she should have paid when her mother died - millions unpaid, and the reason given that she must maintain her fabulous wealth. I truly find it shocking that people get so very cross when MPs get their moats cleaned but say nothing when the royals do much, much worse. Like I said before, once there's an HRH involved, excuses follow.
batgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 13:05
batgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
She hasn't put herself above the law at all.



You haven't proved anything.
You've done it for me!
batgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 13:14
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,742
You've done it for me!
I think not.

All you've done is indicate that you don't like the Queen.

I have no issue with that. You're not required to.

What you haven't done is provide any evidence of wrong-doing on her part, which was really all I had been asking you to do.
Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 13:18
VicnBob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 948
It's a pretty accurate overview of what happened. Obviously I've missed out a great deal of detail but the main facts are solid. He was accused of theft, he maintained she'd given her permission, court case started, he said he was going to talk frankly, and at that point her memory suddenly returned.

The only thing that can be suggested in her support is that she genuinely forgot and even a prominent court case didn't jog her memory until just after Burrell said what he said. But that's stretching credibility past breaking point, in my opinion (< yes, that bit is my opinion).
The detail is very relevant which makes your take on that situation quite inaccurate. Without writing chapter and verse, if you read the reports at that time, you maybe surprised how the event unfolded. It would also appear that even Paul Burrell didn't have such a low opinion of the Queen.
VicnBob is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:49.