I am glad Kate is feeling much better,however

[portocristo]

Watching the news about the horrendous rubbish problem in Birmingham,this was followed by Kates film clip rambling about Windermere saying we need to connect with nature and couldn’t help thinking it was inappropriate.I bet cancer sufferers in Birmingham would love to do this instead of holding down a job worrying about col doing chores that I bet she never does and have stinking rubbish with rats in the streets. I have no problem with her video but thought the timing was so off. They sometimes need to read the room.

Last time I checked, this country was not a communist regime. Private property rights have existed for nearly 1000 years (and probably more - I’m not particularly up with Anglo-Saxon and Viking approaches to land ownership). Plenty of individuals / organisations / companies own significant tracts of land, some for centuries, some more recent acquisitions.

The Duchy of Cornwall doesn’t make it into the top 10, and along with the Government (in various different guises - eg DEFRA an the Ministry of Forestry are counted separately) and the National Trust you’ll find the Dukes of Westminster and Buccleuch ahead on the list, and also Danish billionaire Anders Povlsen. The Duke of Atholl would also be ahead of William on the list, but he died in 1996 and didn’t ike his heir so it all passed onto a trust - almost like he’s just set up a new Duchy, in fact!

Why is it just one family’s rights of ownership that are being challenged here? Are you campaigning to stop foreigners buying land in the UK too? Or looking to strip the ands of other bodies or families?

And morally they should not be charging the RNLI rent to operate a much needed and valued charity for fishermen, sailors and tourists off the British coastline either. The coastlines of our sea-going nations should, at the very least, belong to the people.

On this final point - since it’s Parliament that has made the rules that they have to charge commercial rents - take that up with Parliament. The Duchy itself just complies with the rules parliament makes for it (as we all do).

It’s also not a universal moral norm that people have a right to the coastlines. In plenty of other countries (Italy, for example - also a sea-going nation) it’s perfectly normal to coastlines to be privately owned.

I would love to have a more redistributive (is that a word?) wealth regime, private property isn't the problem but I think disparities in wealth are a problem.

However, I don't see why any one family, trust or entity should be singled out, as if that will magically sort out the problem. It's just performative. As is saying it is due to the RF's access and influence, lobby groups buy access and influence all the time with less scrutiny.

Let's fix the system, by all means, but the issues with the RF and their wealth are symptoms of the system, not the cause.

Why? Because it doesn't affect you day to day and therefore not worth a comment

Agree!

The current RF didn't will the current.set-up into existence, nor can they change it - it was a deal done in the Hanoverian age, whereby the RF swapped these vast, profitable tracts of land for an allowance.

If Harry had been the second son of, for example, the Duke of Westminster, I'm sure he'd now be enjoying a trust fund that would provide him with lifetime financial security.

In the era when the Hanoverian deal was done, the second son of the Monarch could always have counted on an arranged marriage with the daughter of a wealthy family, and they didn't foresee a future wher a Spare would not have an aristocratic financial cushion.

Yep. Pretty much!

Charles and William, as the beneficiaries of the profits of the two duchies, do pay tax on the profits though.

We don't know what Willy pays if anything as he's refused to disclose his arrangements.

He might be the least inspiring monarch in waiting ever. IMO.

You know that he recently extended the lease from the Crown Estate, for his children, for the next 150 years for a mere £5 million; on an estate which has a market price of £30 million?

Thanks for this.

I knew he was trying (and failing) to rent out distinctly average office accomodation for £££and I knew he had a sweetheart deal originally on the pile but I hadn't seen this.

Blood princesses Bea and Euge are reportedly (and understandably) uninterested in taking on the huge expenses associated with Royal Lodge. I wonder why Eddie thinks his offspring might not similarly baulk?

You undermine your arguments by using silly nicknames- Willy, Euge, Eddie. Just as people using Hazbeen or Megain show they are over involved emotionally rather than looking at the underlying issues.

I agree with the OP as well.

Just wanted to point out that Harry was provided with a trust fund that would give anyone who wasn't spending ridiculous amounts on a house that is far too big for him and the resultant security enough for life.

Sorry if it's been mentioned already (I've only had chance to skim the last part of this thread) but in the interest of accuracy, the male equivalent of Roman Catholic nuns are monks, who also take a vow of poverty. Some monks are ordained priests but not all and it is a different and additional role.

They probably could have kept Harry and Meghan on-side had they all paid a bit more attention to the family dynamics, which are hurtful and toxic if you are not one of the main players.

I suppose it depends on what your definition of a 'main player' is. Before she left, Meghan was the 4th Lady of the Realm, had she stayed she would currently be the 3rd (& would have been much more public during Charles & Catherine's illnesses and recovery).

3rd is very much a Main Player IMO, and they would both have been Main Players for at least another decade.

H&M chose to move to an environment where they are definitely not main players anymore, but that may suit them better (I hope it does) not everyone can cope at that level physically or mentally and if you can't, then absolutely you should step away.

Yup. It's juvenile. And it's a shame, because it demeans the point being made.

Thanks for the advice.

I'm posting within guidelines as always. If you feel the use of nicknames undermines the arguments made, you're free not to engage 🙂

I didn't say it was against guidelines. Just rather childish.

You didn't say that either but no matter.

I'm not really interested in a squabble over posting style or content and won't be getting into one.

Have a good day 🙂

True, I said it undermined your arguments, because it's rather emotional.

'Childish' is a way of summing up a lack of emotional regulation in advancing an argument based on facts.

Have a good day!

IMHO, childish is a generous interpretation because the purpose of these nicknames is to strategically dehumanize and diminish the target.

H introduced the nickname “Willy” in his book Spare which puzzled his acquaintances who claimed that H called his brother "Wills". The Sussex Squad ecosystem uses other cruel nicknames such as “Egghead” or “Baldy” to target W.

M intentionally revived the “Waitie Katie” nickname in the 2021 Oprah interview to target C. Omid added “Katie Keen” to the Sussex Squad lexicon, a nickname based on a character from US comics books M has said on record were her favorite to read. Since Omid's Endgame allegations, the SS use a racially charged slur based on a US hate group to viciously target C.

Unsurprisingly, Ari Emmanuel from WME which represents H&M, would have been familiar with this dehumanization strategy from his brother, political operative Rahm Emmanel...and anyone who lived through the 2016 US Presidential elections can see the way in which SS strategy models key aspects of hyper-polarization political strategy, of which Trump is a master.

For example, in the 2016 Republican Primary, Trump nicknamed his current Secretary of State “Little Marco” mocking his height. (A photo from a 2015 campaign event showed the then Senator Marco Rubio, Florida wearing platform shoes). Other nicknames Trump deployed included “Lyin’ Ted” (Senator Ted Cruz, Texas) and “Low-energy Jeb” (Jeb Bush, Former Governor of Florida). Later on, in the general election, Trump nicknamed Secretary Clinton as “Crooked Hillary” as part of a strategy to dehumanize and diminish his political opponents.

Good point.

It's just manipulative, as I said, including people who have nicknames for Harry and Meghan.

No-one is above criticism for their behaviour. But belittling people isn't necessary. Just criticise their behaviour, if you don't agree with it.

Well H&M don't affect you dya to day so guess u don't think it's worthy commenting on what they do then either.

So we sha see you telling me on the H&M threads that it's childish to use nicknames for them...look forward to seeing you post it on those threads

Could you translate this please?

?

I post on H& M threads and don't use dismissive nicknames. Most people don't, certainly the regulars don't.

But there is a fairly consistent thread of republicans who like to use e.g. chuck, willy etc.

I respect republican arguments, but silly and dismissive nicknames are just childish and undermine any genuine points being raised.

😬