MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
ALL MY TUDORS...history chat[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  ♦Greetings!  
  ♦Bits & Pieces  
  ♦Death & Burial  
  ♦Brasses & Monuments  
  Read this BEFORE you apply for membership!  
  ♦Group Guidelines  
  ♦To the Boards  
  ♦Message Board  
  
  General  
  
  The Dark Ages  
  
  The Normans  
  
  The Plantagenets  
  
  The Tudors  
  
  The Stuarts  
  
  Mysteries  
  
  Book Talk  
  
  Tudor Topics  
  
  Crusades  
  
  RBOR  
  
  WOTR  
  
  Right Royal Xmas  
  
  Royal Holidays  
  
  Misc Pages  
  ♦AMT Member Map  
  ♦AMT Member List  
  ♦This Week in History  
  ♦Castle of the Day  
  ♦AMT Goes to the Movies  
  ♦Lovely Links  
  ♦Brilliant Books  
  ♦Royal Begats  
  ♦The Royal Book of Records  
  ♦The Crusades  
  ♦The Wars of the Roses  
  ♦Six Wives  
  ♦Off With Her Head  
  ♦The Reformation in England  
  ♦The Tudors and the Tower  
  ♫Tudor Music  
  ♦Tudor Limericks  
  ♦Elizabethan Insults  
  ♦Elizabethan Dressing  
  ♦Elizabethan Makeup  
  ♦The Invincible Armada  
  ♦The Great Fire of London  
    
  Pictures  
  Manager Tools  
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : Let Them Eat Cake?
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 17 in Discussion 
From: Greensleeves  (Original Message)Sent: 8/30/2008 3:07 PM
27 yrs later?   A slice of Charles & Diana's wedding cake just sold for $1,800 US   HERE


First  Previous  3-17 of 17  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 3 of 17 in Discussion 
From: GreensleevesSent: 9/6/2008 7:56 PM
Imagine what one of Alfred the Great's allegedly burnt cakes would go for .....bet not so much as Di's!  O my Georgina, you too could've collected a nice chunk of change had you known

Reply
 Message 4 of 17 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameGeorgina62Sent: 9/7/2008 6:57 PM
Oh well that's how the cake crumbles!!!!
Am I bovvered no.

Reply
 Message 5 of 17 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknamesilentsilverscreenSent: 9/14/2008 6:02 PM
I could never understand the hysteria around Diana's death. Don't get me wrong, I'm sorry she died, nobody deserves to have their life cut short in those circumstances. But she was rich enough to be able to afford to do charity work, made rich by money that the bunch of unelected "royal" parasites leech off the British taxpayer, and we are supposed to be pathetically grateful that she filled in her time by doing "charity work"???? If somebody was bunging me  thousands of pounds a year from the Civil List I'd have lots of time free to go and shake a few hands and kiss a few babies too, it beats working and it doesn't make her a saint. Give me a  republic any day of the week!
 
 

Reply
 Message 6 of 17 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameMarkGB5Sent: 9/15/2008 6:57 PM
As a fellow Brit you ought at least to make an effort to get your facts right before spouting off such nonsense as you've printed above.
At the time of her death Diana was no longer on the Civil List, that ended with her divorce more than a year earlier.
The Royal Family do not "leach" off the taxpayer. Take a look at the history of the Civil List and you'll see that it is we the taxpayer who benefit greatly from the arrangement made in 1760 to fund the Royal Family. If you'd like it to cease and go back to the way it was prior to the introduction of the Civil List we'd see the Royal Family's income increase dramatically as they, and not us, would receive the money accrued from the Crown Estates.
Would a Republic be any cheaper ? I doubt it. Most Presidents live in Royal style anyway.   

Reply
 Message 7 of 17 in Discussion 
From: GreensleevesSent: 9/16/2008 8:53 AM
What made George III agree to such an arrangement BTW?  He did have scads of offspring, but you'd think they would've made out better the old way just the same <wonders who funded his quackery treatments>

Reply
 Message 8 of 17 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameMarkGB5Sent: 9/16/2008 7:11 PM
The agreement came about almost by mistake. In 1747 Frederick, Prince of Wales announced that he would, when he became King, surrender his income from the Crown Estates in return for a fixed income from Parliament of £800,000. He did this to support the Tories in the forthcoming General Election and to wrong foot the Whigs. £800,000 was less than he earned from the Crown Estates. Frederick died in 1751, but his son George took on his father's promise and the first Act of the new Parliament when he succeeded to the throne in 1760 was to institute the Civil List. Over the years the Civil List has increased to several million pounds, but the income from the Crown Estates is many times that.   

Reply
 Message 9 of 17 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameMarkGB5Sent: 9/16/2008 7:17 PM
I've just looked up the figures. The Civil List is £7.9 million, the Crown Estates made a profit of £190.9 million in 2005/06. So who's leaching off who ?

Reply
 Message 10 of 17 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameGeorgina62Sent: 9/16/2008 8:26 PM
!HERE HERE! a voice of sense. Thanks for that.

Reply
 Message 11 of 17 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknamesilentsilverscreenSent: 9/23/2008 1:30 PM
 
QUOTE"As a fellow Brit you ought at least to make an effort to get your facts right before spouting off such nonsense as you've printed above.
At the time of her death Diana was no longer on the Civil List, that ended with her divorce more than a year earlier.
The Royal Family do not "leach" off the taxpayer. Take a look at the history of the Civil List and you'll see that it is we the taxpayer who benefit greatly from the arrangement made in 1760 to fund the Royal Family. If you'd like it to cease and go back to the way it was prior to the introduction of the Civil List we'd see the Royal Family's income increase dramatically as they, and not us, would receive the money accrued from the Crown Estates.
Would a Republic be any cheaper ? I doubt it. Most Presidents live in Royal style anyway." UNQUOTE
 
Firstly, just because you don't agree with somebody else's opinion, doesn't make it "nonsense". Secondly,  wasn't Diana on the Civil List for years before being taken off it?
 
Yes I would like to see things go back, to about 1649 would suit me fine, a Republic (preferably a Socialist one) but at least one where we can be Citizens and not subjects of a monarch who is "appointed by God to rule over us"...it's in the Coronation Oath.. No doubt those who believe Elizabeth Windsor was appointed by God also believe in fairies at the bottom of their garden! Where do you think the Royals got all that money that enables them to live in the style they do and not even need the Civil List? Did they find it at the bottom of the garden too? Or was it that their ancestors stole it from the people? I think I know what is more likely.
 
You've got your opinion, I have mine, I bid you good day.
   

Reply
 Message 12 of 17 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameMarkGB5Sent: 9/23/2008 7:34 PM
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but if you print factual nonsense I have to point that out. Luckily Socialism is dead in the UK and the monarchy is here to stay.
God Save the Queen !

Reply
 Message 13 of 17 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknamesilentsilverscreenSent: 9/24/2008 12:51 AM
But it's not nonsense is it and all the insults in the world won't make it so. You carry on being happy to be a "subject" if you want to. Me? I'm as good as the next person, God didn't appoint anyone to "rule over" me, least of all Elizabeth Windsor. I'm proud to be a Socialist and we are far from finished.
 
The people who grinned themselves to death
Smiled so much they failed to take a breath
And even when their kids were starving
They all thought the Queen was "charming"

Reply
 Message 14 of 17 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknamesilentsilverscreenSent: 9/24/2008 2:01 AM
On reflection I'm going to leave this debate here, whilst I might pop in and look at any further postings I won't add anything further. Life's too short, I really can't be bothered to argue as nobody is going to change their mind and to continue it would probably p*ss off other members and the group moderator.

Reply
 Message 15 of 17 in Discussion 
From: ForeverAmberSent: 10/8/2008 1:26 AM
Let's just stay out of modern politics, then, shall we?  I've enjoyed both Mark's & Alan's contributions to AMT (there's that whole R3 thing we love to do periodically ROFL), so I do hope Alan will reconsider.  E2 still has "Fidei Defensor" included in her titles & I believe on some British coins as well, which cracks me up considering what H8 did not 10 years after he received said title for his Defense of the Seven Sacraments.  If there's something as archaic as that still hanging around 500 years or so after the fact, the Coronation Oath wording doesn't surprise me.  Most people take pride & comfort in traditions....look at the lengthy battle the Scots waged to get back the Stone of Scone, which was removed by Edward I, right?  1300's?  And it only went back pretty recently.  There's the Peasants' Revolt in R2's reign (when Adam delved and Eve spanned/who was then the gentleman?) to have a look at; not everyone always accepted divine right of kings to be set above common folk, & never will.  Personally not a fan of Old Noll (the Restoration period is much more fun), but I'm thinking after C2 found out what clinging to divine right entailed, it rather sunk in to successive monarchs, or they wouldn't be around anymore.  The US was all set to become a constitutional monarchy after the American Revolution, but George Washington refused to be made the new King George (& had no heirs anyway so there would've been your basic succession muddle right off the bat).  He went from being the colonies' saviour who could do no wrong to practically being hounded from the presidency after 2 terms in office.  And don't even get me started about the current presidential election  (having said no modern politics).  It's all about having a figurehead to present to the world; GB's PM probably gets more publicity than the royal family nowadays.  If Old Noll hadn't bolloxed up repressive religious statutes with politics & basically run a military junta of a theocracy, not a true republic, there may never have been a Restoration at all.  Did you ever notice how historical interest declines sharply after the Stuart period?  Ugh the Hanoverians ROFL  But I think that's because it becomes more politically factionalized & less about the monarchy after the Glorious Revolution, & even the likes of Victoria we are not that amused with.  The larger-than-life personalities who did what they jolly well pleased & let the little people whinge & eat cake (nod to thread title ROFL) just aren't there anymore in GB.

Reply
 Message 16 of 17 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameMarkGB5Sent: 10/8/2008 7:25 PM
Once the British monarchy lost real power under the Hanoverians history isn't quite so interesting from that point of view. But instead it's just as rewarding to study their lives and the dynastic difficulties they got into.

Reply
 Message 17 of 17 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknamesilentsilverscreenSent: 10/12/2008 9:03 PM
Of course I'll continue to post to the group Amber, I just don't have anything further to say on this particular topic.

First  Previous  3-17 of 17  Next  Last 
Return to General