DS Forums

 
 

Queen Unwell


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Yesterday, 18:41
batgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
It didn't become untenable.

There was no requirement for the Monarch to pay tax, therefore it could never have become untenable.
Oh yes, of course, Bet had an epiphany and thought crikey, I don't pay any tax at all, that's a bit piss poor, I know, I'll pay a bit from now on... Then she went back to attracting tourists.
batgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old Yesterday, 18:48
Rich Tea.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Newport Pagnell
Posts: 21,345
You do realise that Princess Alice died in 1981, don't you? Can you not find a more recent and relevant source than this?
Not sure where you get 1981 from.

Princess Alice passed away in October 2004 aged almost 103, and is the oldest lived member of the Royal Family, she even managed to outdo the Queen Mother.
Rich Tea. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 18:49
blueblade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,202
Why?



As I keep saying, that's my point being made for me - she has used her position as head of state to first pay no tax, and when that became untenable to pay some. The exact same behaviour but without the royal bit would attract almost universal criticism.
Well if you feel that concerned, write to your MP and ask why she paid no tax.

At the end of the day, everything she has done is within the law. Any non payment of tax was based on long standing governmental agreements made for whatever reason, at the time.

You have to remember she is in a unique position in the country, and special rules have been devised in keeping with her office.
blueblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 19:00
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,729
Not sure where you get 1981 from.

Princess Alice passed away in October 2004 aged almost 103, and is the oldest lived member of the Royal Family, she even managed to outdo the Queen Mother.
Ah, I was thinking of the other Princess Alice then - the Countess of Athlone.

That's where the confusion lies.
Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 19:03
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,688
she contributes to the treasury coffers more than you think.

maybe you need to have a little read up on things to get your facts right.

The crown estate would give you a good starting point.
Perhaps you can explain how the Crown Estates income is a contribution to the treasury coffers from the Queen?
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 19:10
batgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
Well if you feel that concerned, write to your MP and ask why she paid no tax.
I already know why. It was a (for a while) secret arrangement. Part of the reasoning was/is that she must be allowed to maintain great wealth.

At the end of the day, everything she has done is within the law. Any non payment of tax was based on long standing governmental agreements made for whatever reason, at the time.

You have to remember she is in a unique position in the country, and special rules have been devised in keeping with her office.
And that's the problem. Or at least the problem of royalty. Special arrangements for the non payment of tax would not have been considered for a non royal head of state.
batgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 19:14
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,688
Well if you feel that concerned, write to your MP and ask why she paid no tax.

At the end of the day, everything she has done is within the law. Any non payment of tax was based on long standing governmental agreements made for whatever reason, at the time.

You have to remember she is in a unique position in the country, and special rules have been devised in keeping with her office.
Surely that precludes her from being an example to the rest of us (as you have been claiming). The 'special rules' she has are not something we can emulate.
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 19:26
blueblade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,202
Surely that precludes her from being an example to the rest of us (as you have been claiming). The 'special rules' she has are not something we can emulate.
That's a rather simplistic way of looking at things. But if that's the way you wish to view her, so be it, your call.

I'm pretty sure most people look up to her for many reasons, and do not view her as a tax dodger.
blueblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 20:10
anne_666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,172
Deleted.
anne_666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 20:49
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,729
That's a rather simplistic way of looking at things. But if that's the way you wish to view her, so be it, your call.

I'm pretty sure most people look up to her for many reasons, and do not view her as a tax dodger.
A lot of people are losing sight of the fact that the Queen's position is a unique one and are trying to use inappropriate criteria on which to judge what she does.

Since it became apparent that she would be in direct line to the succession, her life has never truly been her own. She became Queen at a very young age and has served the country for a very long time. She has never been able to enjoy the sort of private family life that most of us take for granted. She has never been able to pursue a salaried career or to engage in tertiary education. She has had long periods of separation from her children and has had to put her duties ahead of her family, her husband and herself time and time again.

She has undertaken vast numbers of public engagements, gone on overseas tours necessitating long journeys and probably a lot of very tedious ceremonies and speeches. She is never free of paperwork, even when on holiday or when supposedly "off duty". She is not permitted to express her opinions in public or to show preference or favour in her views.

She is not just like the rest of us who are private citizens.... and she cannot retire. She is the Queen 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year and has been for almost 63 years and will still be the Queen when she is ready to draw her final breath.

Frankly, whilst I am not what I would describe as a monarchist, I have a great deal of regard for all she has done. I would not have ever wanted the role which was thrust upon her, as I cannot think of much worse than the endless microscopic scrutiny which she has been subjected to over the years. There is no amount of money, possessions, property or other possessions which could compensate me for the lack of a genuinely private existence. I can honestly say that i do not begrudge her anything, because I know I could never have done what she has for the past 63 years.
Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 20:57
Trulytrue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 236
Your concern for the homeless and the hungry is commendable but it doesn't alter the fact that even if the Queen abdicated tomorrow, the monarchy was abolished, and all the wealth of the Royal Family was taken by the Treasury there would still be homeless and hungry people in Britain. Do you seriously imagine that the government would immediately redistribute that wealth among the needy and underprivileged? Not a chance!

There always have been poor and vulnerable people in this country and there probably always will be. Whilst I am not saying that this is right, nor do I think that it's the fault of the Queen or the Royal Family. Republics have poor people too, don'tcha know?

If you want a change in the way that poor people, sick people, disabled people and vulnerable people are treated in this country, you have a vote and the option to change the situation by telling our politicians that this is unacceptable.

Singling the Royal Family out as the cause of this is both naive and ridiculous.
Where have I done that? Its a thread about the queen I am giving my feelings on her and her family and if you look I say others like her.

I said she could set a example she could speak up, she could do many things to show its not right.. She doesn't
Trulytrue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 21:05
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,729
Where have I done that? Its a thread about the queen I am giving my feelings on her and her family and if you look I say others like her.

I said she could set a example she could speak up, she could do many things to show its not right.. She doesn't
Given that the inequalities in society about which you speak are largely due to government policies and how they are implemented, the Queen is not actually permitted to criticise her own government. That is why we have Her Majesty's Opposition - to hold HM Government to account. She is not allowed to "speak up" politically and if she did, you can be sure that she would be criticised for that too.

She is supposed to remain above politics and as such shes does not offer opinions publicly - one way or another - which is how it should be.
Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 21:10
Trulytrue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 236
Given that the inequalities in society about which you speak are largely due to government policies and how they are implemented, the Queen is not actually permitted to criticise her own government. That is why we have Her Majesty's Opposition - to hold HM Government to account. She is not allowed to "speak up" politically and if she did, you can be sure that she would be criticised for that too.

She is supposed to remain above politics and as such shes does not offer opinions publicly - one way or another - which is how it should be.
She isn't supposed to, and nor are her family, but they do, and fairly often.
Trulytrue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 21:14
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,729
She isn't supposed to, and nor are her family, but they do, and fairly often.
So which is it? Are you saying you think she does offer her opinions publicly or that she doesn't?
Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 21:24
blueblade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,202
A lot of people are losing sight of the fact that the Queen's position is a unique one and are trying to use inappropriate criteria on which to judge what she does.

Since it became apparent that she would be in direct line to the succession, her life has never truly been her own. She became Queen at a very young age and has served the country for a very long time. She has never been able to enjoy the sort of private family life that most of us take for granted. She has never been able to pursue a salaried career or to engage in tertiary education. She has had long periods of separation from her children and has had to put her duties ahead of her family, her husband and herself time and time again.

She has undertaken vast numbers of public engagements, gone on overseas tours necessitating long journeys and probably a lot of very tedious ceremonies and speeches. She is never free of paperwork, even when on holiday or when supposedly "off duty". She is not permitted to express her opinions in public or to show preference or favour in her views.

She is not just like the rest of us who are private citizens.... and she cannot retire. She is the Queen 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year and has been for almost 63 years and will still be the Queen when she is ready to draw her final breath.

Frankly, whilst I am not what I would describe as a monarchist, I have a great deal of regard for all she has done. I would not have ever wanted the role which was thrust upon her, as I cannot think of much worse than the endless microscopic scrutiny which she has been subjected to over the years. There is no amount of money, possessions, property or other possessions which could compensate me for the lack of a genuinely private existence. I can honestly say that i do not begrudge her anything, because I know I could never have done what she has for the past 63 years.
Can't add anything to your above excellent post, except hear, hear.
blueblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 22:53
zoepaulpenny
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: the land of the hobbit.
Posts: 8,839
Is the queen better now
zoepaulpenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 23:14
GusGus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 615
Your concern for the homeless and the hungry is commendable but it doesn't alter the fact that even if the Queen abdicated tomorrow, the monarchy was abolished, and all the wealth of the Royal Family was taken by the Treasury there would still be homeless and hungry people in Britain. Do you seriously imagine that the government would immediately redistribute that wealth among the needy and underprivileged? Not a chance!

There always have been poor and vulnerable people in this country and there probably always will be. Whilst I am not saying that this is right, nor do I think that it's the fault of the Queen or the Royal Family. Republics have poor people too, don'tcha know?

If you want a change in the way that poor people, sick people, disabled people and vulnerable people are treated in this country, you have a vote and the option to change the situation by telling our politicians that this is unacceptable.

Singling the Royal Family out as the cause of this is both naive and ridiculous.


The royal family head up the system that maintains the status quo of our unequal society
GusGus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 23:19
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,729
The royal family head up the system that maintains the status quo of our unequal society
What on earth are you talking about?

They don't "head up" any system. Stop making stuff up.
Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 00:55
BomoLad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,088
What on earth are you talking about?

They don't "head up" any system. Stop making stuff up.
Actually heading up the system of government is, constitutionally, what she does.
BomoLad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:15
Welsh-lad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,459
What on earth are you talking about?

They don't "head up" any system. Stop making stuff up.
Well they do really. They sit at the top of a hierachy that goes Royalty - Nobility - Commoners.

Cannot believe you haven't noticed this in our extremely class-conscious society in the UK!
Welsh-lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:35
Danny_Girl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,537
For anybody to reach their 90's is a fantastic achievement, but, if I'm being honest, I find Elizabeth I a far more interesting character (I've read a bit about her). In fact, I just find the modern-day Royal Family extremely boring, especially when you compare them to the Monarchs of the past; and when I say 'past' I'm thinking of the period from the around the time of the English Civil War and earlier.
I personally don't find it amazing that a woman lives to 90 who has had the best medical care available, including regular screening for life threatening diseases in the early stages, has lived on a good diet cooked for her by personal chefs and who had had the free time to exercise regularly and pursue interests they find rewarding. I think it is far more remarkable that a working class woman who has raised several children whilst holding down a drudgery job on a limited family income with no money for holidays or extras lives to be 90. For the same reasons I could never understand the fanfare when the queen mum hit 100.
Danny_Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:02.