If it's true that we are paying the PoW 1.5 million a year rent for Dartmoor prison...

[CurlewKate]

...among many other things, do you think that's OK? If so, why?

This ^^

And let's not forget Charles spending £8m of our money on portraits to be hung in public places. Everything from council buildings to schools to fire stations. An absolute shameful waste of money. All so we can revere 'our King'

No thank you
It's brainwashing and I have no idea why people buy into this nonsense.
The monarchy needs to be slimmed down, stripped down, I don't want to see all the family poncing about. Just the King and heir to carry out what official duties are needed

I'm sorry! I didn't see your post before I posted!

The BBC are utterly in thrall to the royals.

It's a disgrace that the royals are allowed to influence or veto any output from the nation's public service broadcaster paid for by the nation yet they can and regularly do.

Until our elected representatives get to grips with this I struggle to blame the super wealthy for arranging their affairs to their own benefit, in compliance with the law.

Boo hoo poor Charles and William <sarcasm>

Unlike others I have high expectations of the royal family.

I expect someone like Charles (who is widely seen as a pioneer in environmental matters) to welcome standards, not to seek exemptions; to be the first to meet and exceed those standards; and to have the most environmentally-friendly housing stock, not coal-burning, draughty money pits.

I expect the head of the church to, if not share Jesus' distrust of material wealth, at least show Christian charity and treat his tenants like he would like to be treated himself.

I expect two of the wealthiest men on the planet to have some self awareness and to openly and proactively work with the government to work towards transparency and fairness.

All these excuses and prevarication should be beneath the royal family.

I found the obsequious commentary by the now disgraced Hugh Edwards at the time of QEII’s death quite repellant and in the past, the odious reporting by Nicolas Witchell.

I am a supporter of the BBC but dislike people telling me how I should think or feel.

And fawning over the RF seems to be completely at odds with the BBC’s focus on inclusivity and diversity; even its ambition to deliver impartial news coverage!

Apparentjy the recruitment process to replace Nicolas Witchell is not going well:

https://deadline.com/2024/10/bbc-news-scraps-plans-to-hire-royal-editor-1236118806/

Why licence fee money needs to
be wasted on a royal editor I do not know, so I am glad the process is stalling.

Aside from the Beeb, one huge advantage of having a Republic would be to bin all of the odious fawners and commenters and “experts” like Camilla Tominey, Penny Junor, Dickie Arbiter, Rebecca English, and many many more!

A more repulsive group of individuals I cannot imagine!

You speak for yourself. Don't include me in your 'we'. I wasn't taught to believe that anyone was more important than I am or that I have to bow down and revere any human being. Goodness knows how you were brought up, if that's what you think.
Lots of people have more things and more money and more acres than I have but they are not 'better' than I am.

Too late to edit again but I wrote Rebecca English instead of Angela Levin there but never mind, I’ll be happy when the title “royal
correspondent” or “royal expert” is completely redundant.

The real scandal is that we have allowed the Royal Family to cling onto these private estates through the generations instead of incorporating them into the other "Crown Estates" which are treasury controlled.

Those lands originally belonged to the people until they were stolen.

Calm down. Why the aggression? I was taught not to believe that the royal family are better than anyone. Of course these people are not better than us, or anyone else. But I was trying to make the point that in this country there is still a lot of fawning and reverence for this one family, that goes on, which in this day and age should not be happening.

Totally agree. The Royal Reporters are just dreadful and pathetic. Angela Levin speaking about the Dispatches documentary actually said this...

"Charles is not a greedy man, he has his clothes sewn up if there's a hole in them"

Oh do fuck off you idiotic arse licker.

In light of the recent budget this is outrageous.

I wasn't brought up to revere the RF. Have never watched a royal wedding, trooping the colour etc though of course have seen clips. I did watch QE2's funeral and the Coronation in that they were on while I pottered about at home - just as I attended the US President's inauguration when I was working in the US and was close enough to go for the weekend - state occasions are mildly interesting.

I was brought up to think critically about WHY society is the way it is, distinguish between causes and symptoms, consider what genuine change would look like etc instead of token change that feels emotionally satisfying but doesn't address root causes.

'The RF are all greedy, hypocritical bastards' way of thinking seems just as much a fantasy to me as 'the RF are all wonderful and super human'.

But some people like simple slogans. A bit like Boris Johnson's oven ready Brexit. I don't think removing the RF will in itself result in a fairer society. Making a fairer society may (or may not) bring about a republic.

Here you go. It was on the front page on Sunday morning.

Royal estates 'receive millions from public bodies and charities' - BBC News

😀😀 BustingBaoBun

You really see the ALM (arse-licking maximus) come to the fore in documentaries and news stories about the RF when you see how estate managers and advisors interact with them. No one acts normally!

I am more than happy to show respect to people older and wiser and more knowledgeable than myself, certainly forces veterans, and people who have succeeded through their own efforts, but I simply do not understand why this is expected for people who were born in to privilege.

They can’t help it of course, no one determines the situation they are born in to, but you would hope they would develop more awareness as they age, and realise that credibility on issues relating to homelessness and the environment depend on action not just well intended words.

In certain situations they are being revered for representing the UK but I genuinely don’t understand why an elected President could not do that just as well and with more accountability?

Whether we opt for monarchy or a republic goes to the very heart of who we think we are as a collection of nations.

Do we want a society where class division and financial inequality thrive, and enormous inherited wealth is protected, or do we want a forward looking more equal and fair society based on merit and fair opportunities for all? I think it’s perfectly possible to still honour and value our traditions, history and heritage, while aiming for the latter.

Even if the majority still want a monarch; I think there should be at least a method of checking that this is still the case, by ballot. I believe this should happen after every reign, never mind one of 70 years like the late Queen. And the practice of a new monarch being “heralded” before the late monarch is buried, is designed to allow no room for choice, or even an expression of opposition.

Finally, if the majority vote for a monarch, I think the very least that should happen is that all of their properties and estates should be vastly reduced and all of their accounts transparent and accessible.

@SweetSakura "If the royal family wish to be seen as a pure hard nosed commercial landowner then fine.

They can start paying tax like anyone else.

They can stop living off government grant and expecting public money to fund their existence

They can stop expecting people to grovel and scrape in their presence

They can provide full transparency of accounts (like companies do)

And they can stop pretending to care about children with cancer/the homeless etc"

Absolutely this!!

I would imagine they're pretty old buildings and possibly very difficult to get to a higher rating because of that (without destroying the historical features).

But WHY is he seen as a pioneer in environmental matters! This absolute garbage is repeated again and again with no evidence to back it up - his carbon footprint must be horrific. And I’m not just talking about his international travel but the fact he hops about the country in a fucking helicopter 🙄. He has no right to be seen as an environmentalist. It’s a fucking nonsense.

They are greedy hypocrites but that’s not really the point. The point is that in the 21st century when we are way beyond believing in fairies and magic we should clearly be able to see that these people are just ordinary like you and me. Nothing special. Not deserving of the fawning and privilege and opportunity that they have for no reason other than an accident of birth. That’s all.

I quite agree.

They are neither exceptionally awful or amazingly good.

But blaming them individually for the problems we face as a society is ridiculous.

We get the government we deserve (collective 'we'). And the government, our elected representatives, allow whatever the RF do. They don't have to.

Guys and and St Thomas’ trust is fucking loaded and makes it’s own fair share from renting out land it owns on the South Bank, which is considerable.

unfortunately due to the way the nhs works it isn’t allowed to spend it on NHS care as that must come from the nhs budget.

but it has plenty of it’s own land to store ambulances should it want to. It probably makes more renting the office space and paying rent.

is it any worse an a hospital raking in cash from renting land?

Now now, don't spoil the nice simple message!

😂

If you will take my memory as source- Charles was banging on about the environment in the 80’s and was pretty much laughed at. He was considered weird and “hippy” for his environmental stance.

he was one of the first, and for a long time the only voice to speak up on the subject.

I’m not particularly interested in the RF these days but have no idea if he considers his travel impact vs reach or even offsets. It may be cheaper and have less of an impact to travel in a helicopter than via road or train where he’d need accompanying security, police escort etc.

For anyone interested since it was brought up- Guys and St Thomas’ foundation has a 400million property portfolio.

it also has millions of other investments including fine art.

https://gsttfoundation.org.uk/our-work/property/property-portfolio/

Is it ok that a hospital hoard this amount of land? Why is it ok that this organisation uses nhs money to pay rent when it owns so much? Is it any different to the RF’s use of it’s resources?

They actually do enjoy killing animals, in particular watching foxes being torn apart. Total hypocrites as they are president of wildlife trusts. Prince Philip loved to kill tigers. Totally barbaric cruel, greedy family.

But banging on about it and actually doing something about it are wildly different - and there is absolutely no way on this earth that a helicopter is cheaper or more environmentally friendly. He clearly just believes that it’s the plebs that should be making the sacrifices while he lives in luxury beyond our wildest dreams. Such an arse.