A Tale of Two Brothers

[justtaketheeffingpicture]

Such a contrast in these two today in their social postings. William looking hot, very much like his Mum and doing something positive whereas Harry the Twat is dancing in a hoody 🙄 doing what ? A court jester ? 🤡

I have reported you for asking a question with racist overtones.

I don't think anyone else active on this thread is bored. Several are asking you the same question.

Racist overtones? You are the one who said plumes look ridiculous. @justtaketheeffingpicture is showing you an example of plumes worn ceremonially in another culture.

Which I have answered many times.

Quite frankly this is a coordinated tactic by monarchists who do this to every Republican who sticks their head above the parapet.

I’ve seen it many times on these boards.

You know it and I know it.

It’s pretty shoddy behaviour tbh.

By all means resort to personal attacks.

What, requesting that you give a straight answer to a straight question? The revolution is not coming anytime soon if this is the level of clarity you are offering to the skeptical public.

Don't worry, I will leave you alone now, tonight is my volunteering night.

For example, how does anyone seriously justify a head of state who benefits by £600 million on the death of the former head of state?

Well, here’s parliament’s justification when it was clarified in a memorandum between Parliament, HMRC and QEII back in the 1990s:

The reasons for not taxing assets passing to the next Sovereign are that private assets such as Sandringham and Balmoral have official as well as private use, and that the Monarchy as an institution needs sufficient private resources to enable it to continue to perform its traditional role in national life and to have a degree of financial independence from the Government of the day.

And that makes sense, because if you tax the Monarch on everything they hold effectively on trust for the next monarch (the jewels, the palaces, the regalia, the antique contents, the royal collection) they would have to sell them to raise the funds to pay the inheritance tax. Within a few generations time, they ahve very little. The national heritage has been sold off, and parliament has to ensure they have financial independence in another way.

(It was made illegal for any assets held by the Duchies to be sold a couple of hundred years ago because Parliament wanted to ensure they Monarch had enough money to be self-funding. That’s still an issue for the constitution, hence the current arrangements. So - take it up with Parliament).

You didn't answer @Livingbeyondyourmemes

You didn't answer my simpler question

You reported @justtaketheeffingpicture for asking an even simpler question

I mean this genuinely and not in a snarky way but there are people in the world, like myself, who see photos of the RF dressed up in strange costumes with fake medals and on occasion crowns or huge ostrich plumes on their heads, and think they look utterly ridiculous and bizarre.
My point was about the RF specifically and no one else. I don’t know how much clearer I can be.

So let’s take this picture for example. Based on what you say, you find the Queen utterly ridiculous and bizarre But Jacinda Arden is perfectly fine and not ridiculous or bizarre at all? Despite the fact they are essentially doing the same thing: wearing ornaments that reflect their status within their respective cultures?

Thank you for this serious answer Serenster

I do understand the independence from government point being important constitutionally. Is that solely dependent on funding though?

Very interesting. I don’t think that the majority of people object to the RF being self-funding so much but it’s a question of degree. When self-funding turns in to massive profit as it did on Charles’s accession, it becomes more problematic.

There is definitely a case for eradicating completely the private v public grey areas so that everything is clear, and accounts can be presented with complete transparency, That would be one of my primary reasons for wanting an elected head of state. So that there is no ambivalence at all over what is private versus public funding or assets.

There really is no need to be so very rude.

I really wanted to post much less but it’s difficult when someone repeatedly singles you out and demands answers wouldn’t you say? And then others start joining in.

Very interesting. I don’t think that the majority of people object to the RF being self-funding so much but it’s a question of degree. When self-funding turns in to massive profit as it did on Charles’s accession, it becomes more problematic.

It’s not a profit though (unless I’ve misunderstood you and you are not talking about the sovereign to sovereign transfer). The assets being transferred aren’t being sold, no profit is being realised.

What??? Why??

Oh puleeeese....

Don't be ridiculous. You mentioned velvet and feathers 🤷‍♀️ you are just picking on the RF - please don't try to sweep me up in an attempt at deflection . I googled kings with feathers and a whole load came up. Wouldn't it be easier for you to say. Oh that's ok or no that's daft too ? You won't though. Crazy 🙄

Here you are what about the ex Pope in furs and damask ? Does he look ridiculous ? @Plasticcheeeandgherkins

I suspect that my post disappearing may have had the same cause.

Wow...just wow.

A sizeable percentage of young black Americans are first/second generation Americans. They have visited their parents' villages in Nigeria/Ghana/Kenya/South Africa/Other African countries. Wearing feathers / animal skins is not something to be denigrated or considered strange.

Music videos are shared worldwide...kids in Hong Kong, Brazil, Iceland, New Zealand, Tanzania, etc. all twerk. And kids think that grown-ups imitating them is "skibidi toilet".

Honestly, when in hole...stop digging.

All traditional 'costumes' are a little ridiculous to modern western eyes in the cold light of day (imo) but at the same time the historial link of pagentry and dressing up for tradition's sake does seem to appeal to human beings across a variety of cultures and countries.

Graduation gowns, wedding dresses, black tie, white tie, priests' robes, judges wigs and robes, highland dress, morning dress, bishop's mitres and croziers, the 'beefeater' uniform of the Yeoman of the Guard, morris dancers etc.

Just as unnecessary and over the top to some eyes as the gowns and regalia associated with royal events, I mean why do we make our armed forces wear their ceremonial uniforms for parades and not just their regular ones - what purpose does the bearskin hat really have in 2025?

@Plasticcheeeandgherkins why would you find specifically the British Royal family's traditional regalia any more ridiculous or on the other hand acceptable than any of the examples above?

It's okay to admit it's just because you dislike having a monarchy so much that it makes you more irrationally adverse to their costumes than anyone else's at home or abroad.

It's the same reason the Sussexes get a lot of what can seem like disproportional criticism from some people - once you are annoyed with someone every little thing they do irritates you.

Like a soon-to-be ex-DH chewing and breathing!

Not the only one making this point also Hello magazine

https://www.instagram.com/p/DKrDBgWIzmw/?igsh=MWk5eXY1dWV6dWFx

M has tried the "American" excuse before for hugging. If you randomly went up to hug someone in New York or Texas or Florida...you'd stand a good chance of getting shot. Literally.

There are 330 million Americans or roughly 5x UK population. 40 million are in Cali. And about half or 20 million are in Southern California. Subtract those in other industries (tech, agriculture) and the balance or less than 8 million are in the Hollywood ecosystem (actors, directors, producers, audio/visual, stagecraft, catering, etc.). It is the D-list acting segment that is a tiny fraction of that 8 million that fits M's stereotype.

Americans from the rest of America think people in California are far-left lunatics.
Even Californians know this. The California Democratic Party held its Spring State Convention last weekend. Here's a quote from one of the delegates below:

"I don’t know if a California Democrat can win a presidential election," delegate Jane Baulch-Enloe told the Los Angeles Times. "California is thought of as the crazy people... I don’t mean that in a bad way — though I know some people do — but we do things differently here."