The queen doesnt want you to know

Google Anthony blunt monarchy mission -


At the end of the war Anthony Blunt went on a secret mission for the Royal family. According to Hugh Trevor-Roper, Blunt had been sent to retrieve documents that were believed to be in the hands of the royal family's many German relations. It was feared that the contents of these letters would be published in American newspapers. Blunt told Trevor-Roper that his mission had been successful and gave him some of the details of what was in the letters. It was clear that Blunt had made himself familiar with the contents of these papers. (29)

It has been claimed that these documents included letters from the Duke of Windsor to Adolf Hitler. It has even been suggested that there was evidence in these documents that Windsor might have provided information about Britain's war plans: "This plan required the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) to advance northward in the event of a German invasion of Belgium... The Ardennes was precisely the sector where General Guderian's XIX Panzer Group burst through on May 10, when Hitler unleashed his offensive in the West. This fact raises the possibility of a connection between the Duke of Windsor's activities at Allied GCHQ and the German decision of February 1940 to scrap their original attack plan in favor of a bold drive through the Ardennes to the Belgian coast so as to cut off the British forces." (30)

These documents also showed that Windsor was close to breaking with his brother, King George VI, and moving to Nazi Germany. However, according to a telegram from Eberhard von Stohrer to Berlin, Windsor changed his mind the British media would "let loose upon himself the propaganda of his British enemies which would rob him of all prestige for the moment of possible intervention". (31) Donald Cameron Watt, who has examined the Duke of Windsor section of the German Foreign Ministry files and says that important documents that refer to the Windsors' meeting with Hitler at Berchtesgaden are missing. (32)
 
It seems archaic to have a royal family, i know i'm pretty far left but i don't particularly agree with inherited wealth.

Just because ones ancestors cobbled together enough of a gang to defeat some other wannabee despot doesn't seem like a good starting place to 'rule' a modern democracy.

I wouldn't get rid though, more just slowly phase them out.
 
Just because ones ancestors cobbled together enough of a gang to defeat some other wannabee despot doesn't seem like a good starting place to 'rule' a modern democracy.
It’s not even that though look at how the saxecoburg gothas carpet bagged out monarchy.
They were minor royals in saxony before they stole ours.
 
it's harmless none sense.
Yes keep thinking that and that’s how they endure they have brainwashed the people that they have zero power. The reality is they still have all the power that they ever did they choose not to use it but make no mistake you can have as many elected members vote on a bill but it means nothing without royal assent.
 
Yes keep thinking that and that’s how they endure they have brainwashed the people that they have zero power. The reality is they still have all the power that they ever did they choose not to use it but make no mistake you can have as many elected members vote on a bill but it means nothing without royal assent.
When was it last not given? There are far more important things to worry about.
 
Inherited wealth is a funny thing, we would all expect our assets to be passed down to our children or partner, wouldn't we?

Why would that be different for teh monarchy? If you mean inherited titles, that's slightly different.

We should be done with the royal family, they are a drain on the nation. The queen is essentially a council house scrounger.
 
I used to work for her, but I'm not keen.

Let them exist, let them pay their own way from selling tea towels and what not to tourists, they keep what they've got. Maybe some of the 'historic value' stuff gets handed over to the state, with a few of the castles and palaces.

But there should be zero input into our democracy, I include the House of Lords in this too. We should also have some sort of written constitution (I believe we have most of this across a couple of documents anyway?) and be citizens of our country, not subjects of her majesty or any other such rot.
 
Let's say we use the US system, HoL to be voted for as in the Senate, the HoC as now, then the President: Boris, Starmer and then the Queen decides to join in.

My guess The Queen 60% the other two with the rest.

Be careful what you wish for.
 
Let's say we use the US system, HoL to be voted for as in the Senate, the HoC as now, then the President: Boris, Starmer and then the Queen decides to join in.

My guess The Queen 60% the other two with the rest.

Be careful what you wish for.
Perhaps, but we would have the opportunity to at least vote- we don't even get that at the moment. And she could be voted out too.
 
This is an amazing stat but did you know when princess anne went to court over her dog attacking some one in 2002 this was the first time a senior royal had been in a court room trial since Charles the first..in 1649.
 
Inherited wealth is a funny thing, we would all expect our assets to be passed down to our children or partner, wouldn't we?
And this is the pernicious lie that is used to get you to vote against any more equitable distribution of wealth. "The lefties will take your house off you and your kids will get nothing". Only problem is that it is the righties that are taking old people's homes from them to fund their care in the last years of their lives after paying taxes for forty or fifty years.

There is all the difference between an inheritance of a suburban semi and an estate in Wiltshire but they will make you fear that your kids/grandkids will miss out on their few grand that you hoped might put them on the housing ladder, whilst actually taking it away from you. Turkeys love Christmas.

Still, "trooping the colour", marvellous!
 
And this is the pernicious lie that is used to get you to vote against any more equitable distribution of wealth. "The lefties will take your house off you and your kids will get nothing". Only problem is that it is the righties that are taking old people's homes from them to fund their care in the last years of their lives after paying taxes for forty or fifty years.

There is all the difference between an inheritance of a suburban semi and an estate in Wiltshire but they will make you fear that your kids/grandkids will miss out on their few grand that you hoped might put them on the housing ladder, whilst actually taking it away from you. Turkeys love Christmas.

Still, "trooping the colour", marvellous!
That sounds a little simplistic to me. What are you suggesting as an alternative?
 
That sounds a little simplistic to me. What are you suggesting as an alternative?
Just hand the flag over at the gate. ;)

Seriously, we make sure that only a small percentage of any estate above £5 million (figure off the top of my head) is passed to direct descendants, so each son/daughter gets £5m (or their descendants should a direct heir predecease the estate owner) the rest goes to the state. This would break up the huge estates within a few generations whilst hardly condemning the descendants to penury. I'd listen to arguments over the amount. Ten mill? (This to include the Saxe-Coburg Gothas)

Remove charitable status from private schools and prevent private health companies from using any NHS resources. Renationalise all utilities. Water, rail, etc.

That'd do for starters

Then we'll look at subsidies going to landowners rather than farmers.
 
Back
Top