Blog powered by Typepad

« Here's some good news - for a change! | Main | There are liars, lying-liars and then Iranian liars! »

Thursday, 09 January 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The most laughable thing is that they’re going to make their own way financially,in the hope of becoming independent. As if they’re not rich already. The royal family is becoming a joke whose demise will be hastened by the likes of Meghan and Harry who have taken the fame and fortune and decided to ditch the duty. I don.t really blame them but it does most definitely impact on the others who are still trying very hard to be rather inaccessible,mysterious beings. Who don’t sweat.

Harry and Meghan are irrelevant to the institution of Constitutional Monarchy as Harry is so far down the line of succession that his absence will be inconsequential to the continuance of the system.

So long as they don't expect to live off the public purse let them go their own way. There will of course have to be security as Harry would make a target of importance and that has to be denied to the nutters who would use an attack on them to promote whatever their ideology happens to be.

For all its faults the Monarchy has still given us a stable system of government.

And for what it is worth yes I am a believer in the value of the Monarchy. I even have a piece of parchment signed by Her representative down here making me an Officer and Gentleman.

AussieD, Thanks for the reminder about the parchment. I will have to dig out my Queens Warrant signed by George Younger Secretary of State for Defense.

H&M will probably join all the "proper" culture fads that are eating away at the West. Lots of money to be made in the Climate alarm industry. Also in the global poverty business, not to mention the "diversity" is destiny industry. Floating down stream with all the detritus floating along side is easy. Taking a stand and fighting against the current is hard work.


But then again there's Duff Arkansas. God forbid!

I have my late Dad’s warrant signed by her Maj. in 1952. Okay, it might have been a rubber stamp but it is her signature.

Royalty are among the finest gasbags in the world.

Oh, I see, Bob, met a few of them, have you? Obviously you move in exalted circles!

Who are these people?

Well I reckon Bob to be a royal bitch.

When greed met entitlement.

The whole charity industry that they front is a scandalous deception and fraud, let alone the climate alarmism bandwagon. The revenue these so called "charities" generate comes as much from commercial activity, government contracts, the tax take, and the like, as it does from actual people giving. Actual donations are mixed in to facade the operations with goodly charitable status to get the tax discount. They should be taxed like any other organisation unless they can prove the revenue is all through giving.

Into this opaqueness the royals slide with their greed and entitlement: hitching commercial opportunities to their status leverage. I'm sick of the whole damned family. Slim it down to the throne line only.


that's what Foundations are for. Any good tax lawyer worth his shingle will tell his wealthy client this. Tax treatment is very favorable. Entertainers, athletes, the new rich, all go this route.


Remember my remark about childishness the other day?

*Rolling my eyes!*

My accountant went through the fact that the dividend taxes in Blighty which have edged up every year recently when added to the corporation tax now tot up to the same as if I'd put myself through my own bloody payroll! Where's the enterprise incentive anymore? And this is the Blue Socialists, Gawd knows what the, err, Red Socialists would have done!

So I wonder if I could convert my Ltd Company to a Foundation, Whiters?

"Son of Duff's Beer and Long-Legged Pert-Breasted Inky-Blinky Dahlinkies Foundation", all donations gratefully received.

Just read that we - that is Blighty's taxpayers - paid for H&M's wedding AND the refurb of their home Frogmore House. £32m and £2.4m respectively ...

That isn't cheeky, it's criminal. A refund with interest should be asked for.

I'll join you in toasting their departure, what's to drink? Your old favourite, Gaffer, a "Black and Tan" maybe?

(Go straight to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect £200 ... Ed).


SoD, depending on the rules there, maybe. The SODBLLP-BIBD Foundation can employ whom ever you need. Take "donations", hold assets etc. An Ltd helps with, among other things, arms length exposure to certain law suits. A foundation can be arranged to extend those arms until they disappear.

Btw, if you do this...please send photos of members...
I'll donate.

On the up side, reading the daily rag only takes half the time as I leapfrog the guff about these 2.

Now we know that even from the tip top of the Nolan chart, authority granted by bloodline is perfectly acceptable. The only qualification is that it be subject to downsizing like any other money making enterprise.

David, have you ever met Hillary Clinton?

Also, JK, if I'm accused of being a bitch I might as well be bitchy. Right?

Now we know that even from the tip top of the Nolan chart, authority granted by bloodline is perfectly acceptable.

Handbags at dawn it is then, Bob-the-Bee-atch!

The issue is that there's a thread of Blighty's constitution that is tied up with the monarch. Ancient rules and regs that keep the pols in Blighty subject to a final sanction if they get out of hand. Another oversight (like the you-know-what oversight I was in favour of over the debates of the last 3 1/2 years but others couldn't seem to grasp). For example, Godel's Loophole in the US constitution we've discussed before would not be possible in Blighty coz the monarch could say, "Oi, nooo!" with the weight of ancient rules and regs behind her / him.

Of course the monarch might be a plonker. Someone like Her Maj at the moment is most definitely not a plonker. Anyone who says to the incoming Prime Minister "I don't know why anyone would want the job" is firmly in the tip top pointy corner of Nolan. She is like the unlucky one who got drawn for lifelong jury service by virtue of birth but has no inner desire to do it but does so out of duty. She is the backstop you definitely want.

On the other hand, her son and heir might be a totally different kettle of fish. The slightest chance to use regal power to elevate Saint Greta of Thunberg and the House of Green Blob to giddier heights in Blighty he will likely take. But ancient constitutional rules and regs to counter that exist also.

So on balance, if Blighty's pols were ever to get too big for their boots and try and wriggle out of the layers of strait jacket we've painstakingly clothed them in for the last 1,000 years, at least we have a final roll of the dice to box them in: the monarch - subject to that monarch's attitude and aptitude. With each monarch you might roll a 1 or a 6 or something in between, but that's better than no roll at all, US-stylee.


Alright, I am marvelously made up in drag, handbag drawn. It seems just as likely your monarchy depends on the tolerance of politicians:

And since this one won't make the Monday Funnies:

A boy tells his father, "Daddy, when I grow up I want to be a Libertarian!" His father says, "Sorry son, you'll have to choose."

Anyway, think of it like this: You've got your own Royals in the US now!

See, you always really wanted it, you booted out the originals over the price of a cup-of-tea (how very English, dahling!), then missed 'em so and regretted it so much you got them back in 250 years later!

I know, why not grant H&M the same regal powers as HM? Then you've plugged Godel's Loophole into the bargain! - US Constitution sorted!

Did I give you the bank account details of the SODBLLP-BIBD Foundation? My hefty consultancy fees don't pay themselves, don't you know?



You're pretending to miss the point, sweetie. U.S. "royalty" is not a permanent or coequal branch of the government based on hundreds of years of whistling God Save The Queen or whatever it is you've been up to. And I dare say we and the Canadians are looking forward to the newest version of Fergie, Duchess of York, as TV flack for Weight Watchers. I'll grant there are still devoted "loyalists" or "royalists" over here, but also remind you that Godel was originally Austrian, just like You-Know-Who.

Your Business Insider link corroborated my point exactly Bob!

Her Maj does not approve, and so BoJo faces another obstacle to extending his power, in this case, trying to find a platform for his propaganda.

It's not a question of choice between Libertarianism and a Monarch who is constitutionally limited to only keep the executive in check, rather, a Monarch under such conditions is a veritable Libertarian construct!

Instead of using the word Monarch use "one who is on permanent lifelong jury service and wields no power other than to keep the executive in check and the constitution secure".

See, your instinct to want one also was good!

As you know, I say the more exec-checkers we have the better: -

Habeus corpus
Rule of law
Trial by jury*
Separation of powers*
Freedom of expression

All the ones marked with an asterix are where a power independent of the executive exerts power over the executive, and, in fact, vice versa. For example, a jury decides on the fate of a pol in the dock, but defence team has certain selectivity over jurors. In separation of powers the judicial body doesn't make the laws, the executive and legislative does that, but the judicial body imposes them back on the other two. In other words, non-linear, Godellian constructs.

So now we can add another to the list:

Monarch - one who is on permanent lifelong jury service and wields no power other than to keep the executive in check and the constitution secure.


What did you use on Godel's beloved logic, thumbscrews and a hot iron? The story is summarized by two bullet points at the beginning:

"Johnson has instead chosen to hold one [a Queen's Speech] before an expected general election, leading to constitutional experts labeling it a "party political broadcast" for Johnson's Conservative party.

Professor Robert Hazell of the Constitution Unit brands Johnson's plans a "sham" that will "embarrass" the Queen."

Her Maj has an obvious lack of oversight power. At this point your royals serve mostly as tourist attractions and social leaders, with the exception of those in the House of Lords, and they've been more and more restricted over time. The royal family hasn't even had the right to a vote since 1999.

You might have heard we Yanks fought a war to eliminate the influence of monarchy, and established a written constitution forbidding it. But maybe you're confusing "plutocrats" and "royals". Care to give an example of an American royal?

According to a famed British constitutional scholar, Walter Bagehot, Queen Elizabeth II “could disband the army; she could dismiss all the officers . . .she could sell off all our ships-of-war and all our naval stores; she could make a peace by the sacrifice of Cornwall and begin a war for the conquest of Brittany. She could make every citizen in the United Kingdom, male or female, a peer; she could make every parish in the United Kingdom a ‘University’; she could dismiss most of the civil servants, and she could pardon all offenders.”

A backstop, only for use in time of real need. But some backstop though, eh?

Yeah, you ain't got one, so let's hope Godel doesn't get you one day coz you'd be paddleless up shit creek.


Let's not forget the royal veto of acts of Parliament. It hasn't been used lately, but it's part of that backstop too.

Right. Do all British Libertarians think authority granted by ancestry is a good idea? Seems a bit quizzical and self-contradictory.

Our backstop is much more diversified. It's a combination of the Congresses and Courts at both the federal and state levels and the executives of the states. Together they all serve as checks against the federal executive and each other. Elections, for the largest part, determine the way they're composed. Our system is more consistently responsive to the will of the people, though it has its own problems.

"Our backstop is much more diversified ... though it has its own problems."

No shit.

At least our problems don't include national referenda that can trash over 80 years of economic, diplomatic, and military effort.

"national referenda that can trash over 80 years of economic, diplomatic, and military effort."

To what, Bob, are you referring?

Oh David, you're so coy.

Bob, no, you are obscure!

JK, good one!

The comments to this entry are closed.