Is feudalism alive and well in the UK?

by **Ivan** Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:53 pm

If it isn’t bad enough having a family of privileged and filthy rich layabouts sponging off the state, it now emerges that their principal buffoon has a say in our so-called democracy!

Documents released to ‘The Guardian’ under the Freedom of Information Act show that ministers have had to seek consent from Prince Charles on at least a dozen government bills since 2005. His consent is required if the bill affects the interests of the Duchy of Cornwall - the multi-million pound estate which provides him with his “we’re all in this together” £18 million a year private income.

Subjects covered have ranged from gambling to the London Olympics, wreck removals, co-operative societies, coroners, economic development and construction, marine and coastal access, housing and regeneration, energy and planning.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/princes-consent-asked-12-bills-122951014.html

It comes as no surprise that Cameron, the Queen’s fifth cousin twice removed, has no plans to change the law to end this obscenity.

by witchfinder Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:16 pm

I am somewhat in the middle here, because I totaly disagree with this situation, though on the other hand a monarchist I am and will remain.

No democracy is perfect, not even democracies like the United States which does not have a monarchy, most people in the UK accept Royal Assent, the Queen is "The Crown" and as such is the equivelant to what our American friends call "The People".

The figurehead, the monarch, gives final approval to every bill which passes through Parliament, and thats where it should end, the idea that the heir to the throne should have any kind of veto or unfair influence over government business or legislation is outrageous.

by oftenwrong Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:13 pm

No British Prince has ever waited longer to ascend the throne. Will he still think it was worth it when the time comes?

Will we think it was worth the wait?

by astra Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:59 pm

Feudalism IS alive and very well in UK, sadly

On Google earth you will find a small hamlet called Harrietfield, a one pub spot, oot in ra middle o' nowhere! (hic Twisted Evil

)

The Earl of Mansfield - residential pile, Scone Palace, will NOT allow the water or Gas companies to pipe in services to this place as it "will destroy the ambience" That Glenalmond College has services means nothing. Water is taken from a spring.

Close by is Logiealmond Lodge, still used as a hunting and fishing retreat for the hoi pilloy to play in. Indeed the hotel at Chapelhill to the east makes a very good living feeding, watering and bedding the overspill of this place.

by **Ivan** Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:30 pm

Prince Charles's secret veto documents to be released

An extract from an article by Robert Booth:-

"Secret documents detailing the use by Prince Charles of his little-known power of veto over government bills must be released, the information commissioner has ruled.

A limited number of papers that show how the prince was consulted, in his capacity as the Duke of Cornwall, over the marine and coastal access bill, should be released within a month. Many others will remain confidential under the ruling, which was described by freedom of information campaigners as only a partial victory.

The case centres on the Whitehall convention that means the Prince of Wales must be consulted on any government bill that might affect his own interests, in particular, the Duchy of Cornwall, a private £700m property empire that last year provided him with an £18m income.

The arrangement has been described as akin to a royal "nuclear deterrent" over government legislation. There is no evidence that the prince has ever exercised the veto. Mystery around its application, however, has fuelled concern that it may underpin his lobbying of ministers directly and through his charities or pet concerns such as traditional architecture and the environment."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/17/prince-charles-secret-veto-documents

So Charles can veto government legislation if it impinges on his interests, but the Queen will rubber stamp the appalling NHS Bill, which is only in the interests of the Tories and their party donors, and for which they have no mandate from the electorate. Doesn’t it just show how useless - and what a waste of money - a hereditary monarchy is?

by witchfinder Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:20 pm

Humans are by nature tribal, and humans will always seek to form into some kind of hierarchy, and people will seek to gain or control power no matter what.

For example in the United States ( and several nations ) is it realy democracy that gets people into power, or is it quite often a case of who you are, how much money you have, how much influence you have and who you know. ?

It is a well known and established fact that democracy in the United States is much more a closed shop than it is in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK, there are far more "ordinary" people in politics in these nations as compared to the US and there are also far more political parties both inside Parliament and outside.

Why is it that in the US which has an elected head of state, most senators and governors seem to be very rich, wealthy and powerful people, or from priviliged backgrounds often from wealthy business families or what is often termed as "the political mafia", this is certainly not the case in any of the "Westminster style" constitutional monarchies.

by **Ivan** Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:32 pm

witchfinder. Not quite sure what you're trying to say in that last paragraph - are we being ruled by a government of paupers and ordinary folk after all? Did I just imagine that Cameron and the rest of his evil crew are millionaires?

by astra Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:23 pm

Did the first sttlers in US not go there to get away from the "filthy rich"

It is to be seen that many of the Catholic Landed Gentry were the among the first to get there also, buying up pockets of land and getting deeds from the King!

I feel that the British Parliament and US have moved away from the "For the People" ethic, and are now resorting to type!

by Papaumau Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:11 pm

As I see it most of the countries that are truly modern are not influenced by the power of the elite any more and even our own Queen, ( I am NOT a royalist ), is only a titular monarch.

Yes, while it is true that "royal assent" is still required in a few unimportant places in government, I think that this royal assent is simply going through the motions as far as law being applied is concerned.

We, in Britain at least, are a democratic country and the true meaning of democracy is that what becomes law in Britain does so because our parliament and our upper-house has voted on the law and the result of this vote is final.

Now if this thread-subject was to be changed slightly to say that it is the rich and privileged ones, ( and sadly, the churches ), that can influence the making of this country's laws then I would be more inclined to agree here.

Regards....

Papaumau.

by blueturando Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:05 pm

witchfinder. Not quite sure what you're trying to say in that last paragraph - are we being ruled by a government of paupers and ordinary folk after all? Did I just imagine that Cameron and the rest of his evil crew are millionaires?.

IVAN......Just checking, but to you know the individual net worth of Ed Millaband and his evil crew too? Or would you like some help with those figures?

by trevorw2539 Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:03 pm

Ivan wrote:witchfinder. Not quite sure what you're trying to say in that last paragraph - are we being ruled by a government of paupers and ordinary folk after all? Did I just imagine that Cameron and the rest of his evil crew are millionaires?

The point surely is that the majority of Tory rank and file MP's are not millionaires. There are nearly as many millionaire MP's in the Labour Party as the Tories. I believe there are 2-3 in the Lib-Dems.

If you really want to change things don't go banging on about the top brass. Well, all right. Get it out of your system on here, and don't go on nagging the wife about it Very Happy

Get at those who are the rank and file. Change their way of thinking. Without their support Cameron and his buddies would be out. Your local MP, in most cases, is more susceptible to change. He has his livelihood to think about. Your millionaires' are set. Your local MP is not. Change his/her mind. It can be done.
I suggest you who have Lib-Dem. MP's have a good opportunity. I sense there is a lot of unrest. Stir it with a ladle. If your Tory MP has a small majority, chase him. My area is, and always has been, Tory, unfortunately. If you wave a red flag in some areas you have to be rescued by the SAS Smile

Ooops. I'm suggesting peaceful means, and not inciting 'violence' Very Happy

by trevorw2539 Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:04 pm

blueturando wrote:
witchfinder. Not quite sure what you're trying to say in that last paragraph - are we being ruled by a government of paupers and ordinary folk after all? Did I just imagine that Cameron and the rest of his evil crew are millionaires?.

IVAN......Just checking, but to you know the individual net worth of Ed Millaband and his evil crew too? Or would you like some help with those figures?

Sorry Blue. Didn't see your post until I posted. Neither was I warned of another post in between.

by blueturando Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:57 pm

Hi Trevor, no problem......it seems we are kinda singing from the same hymn sheet.

The sooner people realise that the top people in all of the main parties don't really give much of a toss for the majority, the sooner we can change they way our politicians perform and behave. The situation would be the same or similar whoever is in charge right now and if anyone believes differently then I think they're living in dreamland

Cameron, Millaband, Clegg and their inner circles will always look out for their own first, so it's no use throwing mud in one direction while ignoring the other completely

by oftenwrong Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:24 pm

The answer seems to be that we should not vote for anybody who wants to be a politician.

by blueturando Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:33 pm

The answer is a new political hierachy that is run by people who have experience of 'Real Life', not mollycoddled rich kids who have been fast tracked into the political establishment through Uni...and that goes for all parties.

Do these rich kids know any better how to run a country? No I don't believe they do...for anything to happen they have to have consultation and advice from 'experts' in that field anyway, so why couldn't anyone of us do that

by oftenwrong Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:39 pm

blueturando wrote:....Do these rich kids know any better how to run a country? No I don't believe they do...for anything to happen they have to have consultation and advice from 'experts' in that field anyway, so why could anyone of us do that

So far in the term of this Coalition, the rich kids haven't been all that successful at enriching even themselves.

by trevorw2539 Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:42 pm

oftenwrong wrote:The answer seems to be that we should not vote for anybody who wants to be a politician.

Brilliant. Save a lot on Salaries, expenses and upkeep of Parliament etc. And if no-one wants to be a politician they won't stand for Parliament. Hey, wait a minute. What do we do then? Shocked

by oftenwrong Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:21 pm

What do we do then?

Rule by plebiscite. The technology exists to consult every voter on any and every topic through the Internet. Parliament of the People. Secure voting ensured by passwords. Decisions not by "Ayes 360, Noes 212" but by popular clamour.

Try it! You'll like it, if you are not a career politician.

by blueturando Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:45 pm

I like the idea OW....as long as the important decisions were debated fairly in the press and on Tv. We don't want a hysterical majority voting in the dealth penalty on the back a murder splashed across the pages of our red tops

by Stox 16 Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:19 am

blueturando wrote:
witchfinder. Not quite sure what you're trying to say in that last paragraph - are we being ruled by a government of paupers and ordinary folk after all? Did I just imagine that Cameron and the rest of his evil crew are millionaires?.

IVAN......Just checking, but to you know the individual net worth of Ed Millaband and his evil crew too? Or would you like some help with those figures?

Blue
what figures would these be then?

by blueturando Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:16 am

www.guardian.co.uk/.../oct/.../ed-miliband-journalists-in-glass-houses

8 Oct 2010 – Ed Miliband with partner Justine Thornton at the Labour conference last month. .... He has an estimated personal fortune of around £4 million ...

Just a snippet for you Stox....not doing too bad is he. Anything else you would me to enlighten you on fella?

by Stox 16 Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:08 am

blueturando wrote:www.guardian.co.uk/.../oct/.../ed-miliband-journalists-in-glass-houses

8 Oct 2010 – Ed Miliband with partner Justine Thornton at the Labour conference last month. .... He has an estimated personal fortune of around £4 million ...

Just a snippet for you Stox....not doing too bad is he. Anything else you would me to enlighten you on fella?

Well i myself find little wrong with how much he is worth myself...what I do however find quite hypocritical is a Tory leader who has some £30 million who's sole aim is to protect a small group of City banker at all cost over the majority of the people living and working within the UK. Blair did things like the minimum wage and up'ed the spending on such things at the NHS. in other word he tried to bring in things that would benefit the many..unlike Cameron...now you may not agree with this Blue...but the record of Cameron has so far shown no understanding for the lives of job public at all. as for Ed Miliband...well bully for him and his family.. as i would far rather have a leader with heart than a leader with lead for brains..as for enlighting me...well not sure I need any help on the economic front..as I employ some 29 staff who know all there is to know about economics data...so maybe we can help you far more then you could wish to help me...as its just impossible to sell distorted data...unless you happen to be a Tory party member or MP..

by Stox 16 Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:15 am

blueturando wrote:I like the idea OW....as long as the important decisions were debated fairly in the press and on Tv. We don't want a hysterical majority voting in the dealth penalty on the back a murder splashed across the pages of our red tops

blue
Fully agree with this...not that I believe the majority of the media is far to the center or left view on issues..

by astra Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:37 am

We don't want a hysterical majority voting in the dealth penalty

Hang the Flags of Democracy at Half Mast!! (Thank you John Humphreys)

It's now a discarded concept!

by AwfulTruth Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:51 am

Although I am a Royalist, with a small 'r', I do find this kind of royal family self-aggrandising very tiresome.

When the dear old Queen Mother died, at her funeral service there was a very long roll-call of all the awards the Royal institution and other ones, had heaped upon her. I know Hitler said she was the most dangerous woman in the world (for rallying the people by appearing at bomb-sites, mostly), but why so many awards and titles?

I found this litany of awards and honours rather bizarre, enrobed in this strange royal power to award one's own family members with these arcane, mysteriously illustrious decorations, with all sorts of alluring titles alluding to all sorts of qualities and, frankly, apocryphal achievements.

I also think about the real heroes of the last 100 years; the George and Victoria Cross recipients, and all the other worthy recipients of honours and for so many feats of achievement, bravery and accomplishment.

Then I think about Camilla, being awarded this antiquated Dame Grand Cross title, for services to the Queen?

Actually, could I ask precisely what is so fantastically amazing about Camilla doing a job for a living?

In awarding this strange title, is this nothing more than an elitist, and rather grotesque, belittling of anyone who has ever 'worked' for a living?

Why should Camilla be given anything other than a wage in return for an honest day's work?

I know some will say that this is what is done in royal circles, and that it is a revered tradition; that historical precedence dictates that this system of aggrandisement is perfectly legal, and is a natural feature of British royalty.

I say that the above justification is utter hogwash, and I think it is quite wrong to keep giving these ludicrously unearned and inept awards to members of the royal family as deemed by their own kith and kin.

Finally, I move that these awards should stop, and that only awards given my the British government and the British people should exist, in order to stop royal self-aggrandisement from devaluing the achievements of the British public.

I rest my case!

by trevorw2539 Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:18 am

AwfulTruth quote

I rest my case!

Ouch. Get it off my foot.

Agree with most of what you say. Honours for those who earn them. The only exception I would make are certain 'honorary military ranks' for the Royals to enable them to fulfill their duties as 'honorary' CiC's of Regiments etc. Some of the Royals have earned their ranks anyway, as members of the Services.

I am a royalist. Always have been. Might change if Charles becomes King, instead of his son William.

Cor. That case was heavy

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:51 pm

It's hardly worth complaining about when compared to slimy time-serving Tory MPs getting Knighthoods , while the likes of Lord Hanningfield are deemed worthy of a Peerage even though he has been convicted as a shameless crook who deliberately claimed expenses to which he was clearly not entitled...

by oftenwrong Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:19 pm

Unless Royalty can be made to appear "special" they are no different to the rest of us. The way they do it has changed little in hundreds of years, gaudy clothing, bejewelled ornamentation and scores of hangers-on.

Not unlike the military, or Parliament. Same game, "We're better than you lot, so be sure to do as you're told."

by AwfulTruth Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:02 pm

Good points guys - sure there are other examples.

As for the pomp and ceremony, it always has and always will be public theatre at its most resplendent; who can doubt that when the Queen is draped and festooned with diamonds she looks nothing less than amazing.

As for Camilla: who on earth is she?

by astra Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:11 pm

who on earth is she?

A WHO er em , a greggs tart made good?

by trevorw2539 Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:12 pm

astra wrote:
who on earth is she?

A WHO er em , a greggs tart made good?

What time is visiting at the Tower? scratch

by trevorw2539 Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:27 pm

Quote Oftenwrong. We're better than you lot, so be sure to do as you're told."

The Queen is subject to the state. What has SHE told you to do lately? Most of it is perceived ideas. The Queen's life is based around her work for the State, just as most people's lives are based around their work. Several hundred events each year for the State and charity, at the age of 90.

Good luck your Maj. You're welcome to it.

by jackthelad Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:47 pm

So Camillas a Dame Grand Cross, what ever that is, i wonder why Nell Gynn never got any recognition for services rendered. Charles ought to get recognition to services to ugly women, and that one should be made to wear a burkha. Our good old Queen doesn't look as if she as any intentions of throwing in the towel yet, she is a canny lass. Elizibeth can see that her son Charles is not wanted by the majority of the people of this nation, so she is carrying on till Charles eventually see the light and steps aside for William. Our Queen is like her mother in there for the longevity, she will stay the full marathon, she knows her son is a bit thick and will take time to realise what a handicap he is. The Grand Cross thingy is just a fop to soothe ruffle feathers.

by trevorw2539 Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:08 pm

Jackthelad quote

of the people of this nation, so she is carrying on till Charles eventually see the light and steps aside for William. Our Queen is like her mother in there for the longevity, she will stay the full marathon, she knows her son is a bit thick and will take time to realise what a handicap he is. The Grand Cross thingy is just a fop to soothe ruffle feathers

Blimey. The Tower is going to be busy tonight. Smile

by astra Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:14 pm

(Remember Steve McQueen in wotwozit)

by oftenwrong Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:44 pm

Perhaps the Royal Family haven't twigged yet that they are held by their "loyal subjects" in the same regard as waiting for Giant Pandas to mate.

Aaaaaah!

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:00 pm

Is feudalism alive and well in the UK? Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRg5qimUXKF0XLRjGYbKjRctL6Z77HECmPaObYLptTffc8t1k9q4w

(nowmsn.com)

" Great news , darling - Mummy's making you a Dame"

" But, Charles, I don't even like pantomime..."

by player1 Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:12 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/08/julie-burchill-queen-diamond-jubilee

by AwfulTruth Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:08 pm

Phil Hornby wrote:(nowmsn.com)

" Great news , darling - Mummy's making you a Dame"

" But, Charles, I don't even like pantomime..."

Phil, you kill me!

by oftenwrong Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:36 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:Quote Oftenwrong. We're better than you lot, so be sure to do as you're told."

The Queen is subject to the state. What has SHE told you to do lately? Most of it is perceived ideas. The Queen's life is based around her work for the State, just as most people's lives are based around their work. Several hundred events each year for the State and charity, at the age of 90.

Good luck your Maj. You're welcome to it.

Few of us would have a problem with Queen Elizabeth II ruling us for the next millenium, but there is an immediate difficulty with the succession. Ask the Duke of Edinburgh whether his first-born is fit to reign over us.

by Sponsored content