h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Anyone watch this?

I had always kinda lliked Charlie a bit... dunno why (being a staunch republican) but they did a *proper* hatched job on him and now I am not so sure.

I've always considered Despatches to be the kind of programme which picks a side and then makes the facts fit. I saw one years ago about Nichirin Shoshu Buddhism and it was severely one-sided (I was at that time a member). I'm ashamed to say it made me back away from Buddhism, but ever since then I haven't trusted the programme. If they decided to make Charles look bad I'm sure they succeeded.

Deb

Oh, any programme that has a pop at chanting charlatans is fine by me. And I loathe the myth of 'balanced journalism' anyway.

Damn! I missed that one. Did they talk about how the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall habitually pilfer the estates of those who die intestate, leaving their common-law partners destitute? Did they talk about how the government passed up a chance to renogatiate the CAP when the Privy Council pointed out that the Windsor family would lose money? Did they get into any of that bizarre phone tapping business that's never been properly investigated? (Correction - nobody has dared publish anything about it). Did they mention injunction against the Popbitch story which for obvious reasons I can't go into here? (FB - if you don't know the details, I can e-mail you )

They really are a sorry shower of brainless parasites. I never voted for any of 'em!

The intestacy issue is a bit of a marginal one - elsewhere in the country the Crown has basically the same rights to claim the property of people who die intestate in the absence of heirs with a statutory claim on the estate.
There's the legal *possibility* of the Crown or the Duchies of Cornwall/Lancaster exercising discretion, but it's pretty trusting to expect that they would.
Especially in the case of a non-married partner ('common-law partner' is a legally meaningless phrase these days), if someone had such a partner and any sufficiently close blood relatives, those relatives would get everything in the case of the person dying without leaving a will, and the partner would get nothing.
Saying "I don't have any qualifying relatives, so I don't need to make a will" seems to be demonstrating a partial understanding of the law (knowing which relatives might automatically qualify as heirs) combined with a definite ignorance (assuming that 'common-law partner' counts for anything under the law).

http://www.wisewills.co.uk/intestate.htm

The point is that Corwall and Lancaster *do* exercise bona vacantia...and there have been numerous cases where they have not applied discretion in cases where the estate has included the home of a common-law spouse.

The money-grabbing, tax-dodging s.

I dunno...all this talk about a modernised. 'Swedish-style' monarchy...I'd much prefer a Russian-style one. I wonder where we can find a disused mineshaft?

(And I boycott Charles's biscuits, too.)

Ed yes please....

Thing is, it's *still* a dumb thing to do to assume that without a will, the people you want to inherit will just inherit unless they come in the right place in the priority list of certain blood relatives.

It seems almost precisely as unfair for a half-blood uncle someone might have never met (or might actively dislike) to inherit their estate while their unmarried partner gets nothing as to have the Crown and/or Chuck taking the pot. If people don't want that to happen, it's easy to avoid.

I can see that *something* has to happen to estates in the case of intestacy...and that wills are therefore necessary. In my opinion, it would be quite reasonable to count partners as next-of-kin, irrespective of marriage/civil partnership...but that's by the by.

What is really bizarre is that we allow the proceeds from intestacy to go into Charlie's private coffers *and* don't require him to pay the normal tax rate *AND!!!* we pay him a salary on top of this!!! And yet in spite of all this moolah rolling in, he still bothers to pursue cases in which bereaved partners need a home far more than he needs the price of their house.

I mean...what's the point of these people?

Oh, that's right. Allegedly they bring in tourist revenue. Sort of the British equivalents of Micky Mouse, then.

"I mean...what's the point of these people? "

Aren't they the pride of British Dentistry?

After Thatcher did her work...anywhere in the UK.

"*AND!!!* we pay him a salary on top of this!!! "

I don't think we do - I'm pretty sure that none of the top royals claim from the civil list. Not the Queen, Philip, Charlie, his kids or I think any of the Queen's other kids.

People like Princess Michael do though.

Yuo can bet the Duchys accountants and lawyers are all over nicking the cash off bereaved partners. But Charlie could put a stop to it.

< we pay him a salary on top of this!!!>

As KerrAvon has sadi we don't pay him a salary...but we did which os how he has been able to build up his empire...had we asked for the money back that we had given him in the past things would be a bit different. And they only agreed due to a lot of pressure. Again, you can bet they asked their accountants if they would be OK without the hand outs.



He's got the ears for it.



Charles is OK for a royal. Though he needs to butt out of the genetic modification debate etc...he really shouldn't get involved in stuff he knows nothing about esp. when he shows up his woo-woo credentials so often.

Was this the programme about Charles's dealings via the Duchy of Cornwall?

I watched it with a couple of mates and the overall feeling was "so what?". It looked like a desperate attempt to generate controversy and ill-feeling.

>>It looked like a desperate attempt to generate controversy and ill-feeling.

Oh, I had plenty of ill-feeling to spare already, I can assure you.

I'm not sure what the phrase "...OK, for a royal" means. It's a bit like saying someone's OK for a tapeworm.

Hmm...Charles.

His mother, Elizabeth, has in general been a model of decorum and restraint. Frankly I don't know what her views are on anything. I've sort of grown up thinking that's how a Monarch should behave if they want to keep their head (or their privilege) - unobtrusively performing their duties.

Whereas Charles, is rather indecorous, Its not just the genetic modification debate - it seems to me he's made a bad habit of serial band-wagon-jumping issues about which he plainly lacks basic understanding. He publically propagates these ill-informed and poorly thought-out opinions, and comes across as being a bit thick as a result. Dignified it ain't.

Other than that, haven't seen the program, no further opinion on the man. Basically republican, not keen on tradition in general, but the monarchy is tolerable as a bit of fun sanctioned by popular mandate.