Who? What?


"As of 2019, members of the royal family are:


Archie Bunker Harrison Mountbatten-Coburg is not on the list.  I am shocked, shocked.  Why doesn't he get his $256,000/year (or more) from the UK Treasury like his kinfolk?  Is this racism?  Will the next one be called "Merkleson?"

Seriously, more or less, why are some of these drones on the public dole for accidents of birth, births only dimly remembered even by Her Majesty, probably   Are they taxed on their welfare payments?

Why would the Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York (Andrew's kids by the execrable Sarah Ferguson) 29 and 30 years old be paid anything from the public purse?  I recognize that it is not my money, but …

Perhaps the Queen is also paying them from the accounts receivable on her estate, the Duchy of Cornwall, etc., etc.

She seems to have been paying up to maintain the high living of her son Andrew.  Will she continue doing that? 

Prince Michael of Kent?  Who knew there was such a person?  pl

This entry was posted in Humor. Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to Who? What?

  1. Kurt Van Vlandren says:

    That’s their system. They seem to like it. Who are you to snipe?
    Why not turn your scorn on our own “Royal Family” (at least that’s how Drumpf seems to view it)?
    At least the Queen likes dogs. Drumpf didn’t go anywhere near Conan, let alone scratch his ears. Or remember his breed.

  2. turcopolier says:

    Ah! A retired Floridian American royalist anglophile … How droll! How fun! Do you stay up at night to watch the royal weddings? You must be new here. I am a gadfly. Look it up. To quote the Shakespeare character (a British play writer) in “Upstart Crow” (a Brit TeeVee show) “That’s what I do.” I often laugh at Trump and the people in our government. The dog? The Trumps were obviously afraid of the dog.

  3. walrus says:

    Col. Lang, surely you jest.
    The example of the crap now going down between Congress and the President is a perfect example of the pitfalls of American style Government.
    To put that another way, consider the billions of dollars the fight between congress and the President are costing America. The measly pittance Britain pays to the royal family to avoid such messes is a great investment. Plus, you get a great tourist attraction and endless comedy to go with it.
    More seriously, the Queen and Royal family are the ultimate source of authority for the armed forces and judiciary. They take that role very, very seriously. Every century or so they have to stamp hard on the fingers of politicians who try to interfere in that sphere.

  4. turcopolier says:

    The piece is labeled “humor” We have had this discussion several times. You are a royalist Australian of German and American ancestry. That is no more ridiculous I suppose than a descendant of Yankee abolitionists and Union Army soldiers who reveres people like Jubal Early. Does Australia pay part of the freight for some of these parasites? I laugh at everything. You should know that by now. The argument that the monarchy is the guarantor of the constitution (unwritten) applies to the queen’s nuclear family, and even in that case what do you think would happen if she tried to defy parliament in a major matter. Victoria is long dead as is the Raj.

  5. Petrel says:

    Permit a one-time guest student in the UK to update you about Royal finances.
    Queen Elizabeth receives 15% of the revenue generated by her very large inheritance — mainly rents. The 85% revenue balance is folded into the UK Treasury, just like any other income tax.
    The Queen is expected to upkeep and maintain a number of properties, such as Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle and Holyrood House, and to fund her family’s living and visits throughout Britain during the year — with the exception of Prince Charles, whose income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall.
    From my distant observation, the Queen is quite frugal. Pictures of her receiving Boris Johnson as new Prime Minister, in Buckingham Palace, exhibited an electric heater next to her lounge chair. Apparently all her homes are very chilly in winter.

  6. Ishmael Zechariah says:

    Fellow Pilgrims,
    To the few who might not have read it, might I recommend “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court” by Mark Twain (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/86/86-h/86-h.htm ) ? IMO, one of the best expositions of monarchy, quite humorous and very much in line w/ the Colonel’s write-up above.
    Ishmael Zechariah

  7. Vegetius says:

    Say what you will about the tenets of Bolshevism, at least they knew how to deal with a corrupt royal family.

  8. turcopolier says:

    So, the money that pays the stipends ALL comes from the royal estate circulated through the treasury of the realm?

  9. Factotum says:

    Hunter Biden’s brand new child, legitimately established, now gets tax payer funded US Secret Service protection as former VP Joe Biden’s grandchild.

  10. Factotum says:

    How much do you think Secret Services costs are for former elected US officials and their extended families? A lot more than $250K a year for Bonnie Prince Andrew. He is a bargain compared to the lifetimes of first children and their extended families.

  11. Petrel says:

    Colonel — Yes indeed !
    Back in 1760, ( bad / mad ) George III turned his income over to the government and received 3 separate allowances, known as the ‘Civil List, ‘ which needed periodic updating for inflation and such. By the way, the royal yacht Britannia was actually designed to house and transport the UK government to Canada, or Australia, following a nuclear exchange and the Civil List was adjusted to pay for this piece of floating defense.
    The 1760 arrangement was changed in 2012, when the Queen agreed to receive 15% of her income and obligated herself to manage key properties associated with the nation, fund her family and civil servants. The new arrangement permits her to spend whatever is needed — for example following a major fire at Windsor Castle — without explicit permission from the government. But, she is not completely free. Her “Crown” inheritance is entailed, the UK Treasury oversees the Queen’s expenditures and publishes an annual report about them.
    Frankly, there is something very archaic about the whole arrangement. The Sovereign is to pay for regular expenses out of ‘Crown’ income and turn to Parliament only for extraordinary events such as a war.

  12. LondonBob says:

    I suspect the small electric heaters are a clever PR trick, then again I don’t know how good the central heating systems are in old palaces. It is true the state makes more money from the properties and assets owned by the Royal Family than they take out. At the end of the day I would far rather them than a politician do the job, unless the ghastly Meghan Markle should ever be in line to be Queen.
    The question I would have is that surely the intelligence services, Special Branch or the Royal Protection Squad keep an eye on the likes of Andrew, so why weren’t alarm bells ringing about Epstein?

  13. fredw says:

    Prince Michael of Kent and his family do not receive public funds, but they are still close relatives of the Queen and attend royal celebrations from time to time.

  14. Cortes says:

    A reasonable introduction to the Crown Estate:
    The income derived from foreshore licensing is unlikely to be negligible.

  15. turcopolier says:

    Good for them!

  16. turcopolier says:

    “The Sovereign is to pay for regular expenses out of ‘Crown’ income” This is a bit of a sham since the 85% is available to her although subject to parliamentary audit. Subventions to those she thinks worthy are paid from that.
    One of you stated that “a great many” of “these people” do not receive pubic funds. That implies that some do.

  17. Fred says:

    So children of corrupt parents deserve to be shot? Bolshevism at its best.

  18. turcopolier says:

    “Ensures the safety of the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States, the president’s and vice president’s immediate families, former presidents, their spouses, and their minor children under the age of 16, major presidential and vice presidential candidates and their spouses.” wiki on Secret Service.
    This would not extend to Hunter Biden or his children.
    Andrew has been living a lot higher than 250K. Where did that come from?

  19. turcopolier says:

    I am amused by some of you who think I am ignorant of British history and who are so dull as to lecture me as to the lack of veracity in my attempt at a humorous post. A lot of you are just a waste of time. The royal house are no longer called Hanover or Saxe-Coburg? Really? Who knew?

  20. Vegetius says:

    If you could go back in time and kill baby Adolf would you? Young Stalin? Saloth Sar?
    But “deserve” has nothing to do with it. Spend some time reading up on Rotherham, and the Palace response, and then get back to me about who deserves what. Especially interested in what you think of how the Windsor’s addressed this.

  21. turcopolier says:

    I am particularly saddened that some of you accepted the notion that Merkle’s child is named “Archis Bunker Harison Mountbatten-Coburg.” My god!

  22. prawnik says:

    I think “Archis Bunker Harison Mountbatten-Coburg” might be a lot cooler than some of the actual royals.

  23. The Beaver says:

    Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor aka Master Archie does not have a Royal title because his parents declined a courtesy title for him. Anne did the same thing for her kids several decades ago.
    There is a commercial business going by the name Crown Estate from which the Queen gets 25% of its profits
    So the old girl can’t complain if she will have to dig into her private “treasury” to help Randy Andy from now on. He may get a tax-free allowance from his mother.

  24. Leith says:

    Archie Manning Mountbatten sounds better to my ear. What is the Brit counterpart to quarterback? Striker? Centre-forward?
    As for the royal stipends, they are pittances compared to what we US taxpayers give to Erdogan, Netanyahu, Sisi, Salih, and others.

  25. Fred says:

    You need a bigger shovel.

  26. Babak Makkinejad says:

    There was, in fact, a condom commercial with depictions of Mr.&Mrs. Mussolini, Hilter etc. It concluded with: “So much could have been avoided by one of these.”, showing the picture of a condom.

  27. scott s. says:

    I suppose George III would have had a separate income under his Prince Elector of Hanover “hat”?
    Victoria had the advantage of being able to marry off various family members into other Euro royal families. Elizabeth II not so much (Kaiser and Tsar, where are you?)

  28. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Mark Twain was making fun of the Medievalism of such as Walter Scott. He was channeling Cervantes.

  29. Babak Makkinejad says:

    As well as the Legitimate Authority in Church of England. If Monarchy is abolished, will the Church of England elect the Bishop of Rome to be the Legitimate Authority?

  30. Keith Harbaugh says:

    Princess Michael (born Marie Christine Anna Agnes Hedwig Ida von Reibnitz) is getting a bit up in years, but she’s been quite a dish all her life,
    capable of showing bodacious cleavage (yes, ladies, I notice such things).
    She attracted my attention when she made the news for a bit of (gasp!) political incorrectness in NYC:
    “The Princess Diatribes”

    ONE could not pick a much worse place in New York City to pitch a public hissy fit than Da Silvano, the tightly packed Greenwich Village restaurant that is famously popular with gossip columnists, and the people gossip columnists like to put in their gossip columns.
    So it was bad enough that Princess Michael of Kent, known to the press in England as the Pushy Princess, exploded in a decidedly unroyal pique at a table of noisy diners last Monday night, and exhorted them, in the words of the diners, to ”go back to the colonies.”
    But it was worse that the diners she yelled at were well-connected black New Yorkers. The five diners — a banker, a music industry executive, a lawyer, a public relations consultant and a television reporter — construed her remark as racist.

  31. Flavius says:

    Good Lord, what next will the prigs, the priggishly inclined, and people who should know better but whose sense of humor has been smothered by politics and modern life, place off limits to the human appetite for laughter. No humor ever strikes me so funny as when it happens on forbidden turf.

  32. Diana C says:

    That was a common English assignment in junior high school when I first began teaching. It IS pretty funny.
    Quite frankly, if you want an example of Twain’s darker humor, read “The Stranger.” It’s a very good take on the Southern Presbyterians of his time, the ones–with their Calvinist ideas of predestination and the ideas of Johnathan Edward’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”
    Those were the church ladies that Twain depicted in Huckleberry Finn (which is considered America’ epic story. There are several episodes with the “King” and the “Duke,” two con artists that appear often in the story.
    I think the British Royalty are quite fun to read about. Th various kings throughout the centuries were quite interesting. Who does not like reading about Henry VIII? We learned to remember the names of his various wives by remembering a rhyme: Divorced, Beheaded, Died, Divorced, Behaded, Survived. (I know their names, but I’ll let you look them up.)
    There have been some American politicians who are quite entertaining to read about. Most of the politicians today won’t be considered entertaining untill they are no longer people we have to see and hear on our television screens. Some of them will eventually be good subjects for comedy. Now they are just annoying.

  33. HK Leo Strauss says:

    All of this is silly, what is important is who will be the King of Scotland post-Brexit?
    I nominate Ralfy the Scotch reviewer: http://whiskyreviews.blogspot.com/

  34. AK says:

    My admittedly limited understanding of military & law enforcement service dogs is that unless you are that dog’s highly trained handler, you do not go near it, let alone scratch its ears. You will regret it dearly. Service dogs are not “companion” dogs. I would think this would apply especially to dogs like Conan.

  35. akaPatience says:

    The Royal Family, with their reliably-frequent antics, posh abodes, silly hats, and buck teeth (is that where Buckingham derives from?) are much more entertaining than a lot of Hollywood’s output. I would say the royals absolutely excel when it comes to entertainment. If they ever team up with the WWE, they’ll rule not only Britannia but the entire world.

  36. d74 says:

    I’m sorry.
    IMO “Merkleson” is wrong.
    The Bavarians blow the “e” between 2 consonants but keep its pronunciation. To my knowledge, they are the only ones who do so.
    A universal example is Jodl – General. His life was shortened in Nuremberg in 1946- Jodl pronounced “jodel”.
    Another example is Lidl, but you have to be European to understand, unless perhaps these enterprising Bavarians have jumped over the duck pond…
    Bavaria has its own political bodies. They cooperate rather poorly with Merkel. However, she is rather on the Baltic side, in the north-east. And yet another opposition between the Lutheranism of one and massive Catholicism in the south.
    In short, Merkleson seems to me to be derogatory to her. And we won’t talk about her kids.
    On the other hand, I prefer “Battemberg”

  37. catherine says:

    I would prefer living under a benevolent royalty then the elected riffraff in the US that thinks it makes them royalty.

  38. Peter Charles says:

    I have long suspected that just like Epstein, Andrew was an State/Intelligence Asset, able to drift around the world almost unsighted while meeting with a very large pool of dubious characters who are intimately involved in government and multinational organisations.

  39. Mike says:

    Get rid of them. Pains in the arse the lot of them. Drones. Archaic nonsense. Corrupt. Decadent. Arrogant. Cut off from hoi polloi ordinary Brits. Supercilious. Vastly expensive. Ludicrous.
    Signed – by oner born and bred a Brit.

  40. Fourth and Long. says:

    I laughed. Only wondered why “de Gotha” was missing.

  41. Before the Colonel converts me to republicanism might I recount a truly monarchical tale? From the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. You will have come across it early in your studies. A vivid brutal piece. The story is still told to the Royal security guards to teach them their duty. I’ll clean it up a bit. A shade too much sex and violence for general release.
    The year is 755. The king has an assignment with his paramour in a secluded hut. Middle of the country. Well, I suppose most places were the middle of the country those days.
    His bodyguard withdraws to a discreet distance. Big mistake. The king’s enemies break in and murder the king. The bodyguard, alerted by the screams of the king’s paramour rush up – too late. As is only proper they die to the last man avenging their lord.
    After quite a lot more dying to the last man as a result of the first lot dying to the last man a distant relative of the King, a lowly swineherd, comes across the leader of the King’s murderers crossing at a ford. The swineherd kills him on the spot. So would you, if someone had murdered your fourteenth cousin twice removed. Family’s family. The fate of the paramour is not recorded. She probably lived happy ever after. They usually do.
    And today the current heir to the throne talks softly to flowers in his greenhouse. He hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s missing.

  42. Diana C says:

    I was thinking about the royal family of England. Then it struck me that the Brits are fortunate that their royal familiy does not match my Volga/Black Sea German families in the ability to produce heirs.
    In Russia, the Russians were jealous of how “kinderreich” our families were. For example, my great-aunt and great uncle on my father’s side had fourteen children. On my mother’s side a great aunt and great uncle had twelve children. Those numbers were quite common. My own grandparents, however, were slackers. My dad’s parents had “only” eight children while my mother’s parents had “only” six. I can go back into my family charts and find several families of ten or more children.
    That number aof children–especially in Russia added to their relative wealth. Land was given out to the boys to farm The girls helped with the vegetable gardens, the sewing, the cooking, the care of farm animals, etc. The native Russians, for some reason, could not match them in “producing” all those farm hands and household workers.
    The British taxpayers should just count themselves lucky that Her Majesty’s family is as small as it is in comparison.

  43. Factotum says:

    Maybe Andrew was on Epstein’s dole, hired to be royalty chick bait? Rules of primogeniture did leave leave a lot of idle second males making odd decisions to retain some form of social relevance.

  44. Factotum says:

    Got to admit, I love the show, the pomp, the circumstance, the dress, the rituals and the high visual decorum – puts a lump in my throat and a tear in my eye when I see “tradition” prevail. Life for too many of the rest of us has become so coarse.

  45. turcopolier says:

    I have no objection to the British Monarchy as installed in the overseas dominions.

  46. ambrit says:

    Not to single Andrew out, though I harbour no love for that man, but where were the alarm bells in Washington when serial fornicator Bill Clinton flew on the Lolita Express?
    This sort of loose morals lifestyle seems to be standard for the “elites” all over the world.

  47. Something Like That says:

    According to Bruce Banner (eight PhDs, no less, so he knows a thing or two) going back and killing baby Thano… sorry, baby Hitler wouldn’t do anything.
    After all, when you time-travel your future is already your past and the past is actually your future.
    So, no, throttling baby Hitler doesn’t help because adult Hitler has already killed all those millions.

  48. Something To Think About says:

    Perhaps you are confusing the concept of the Royal Household with the concept of the Royal Family. They are not one and the same thing.
    Certainly as a list of the “Royal Family” it is both incorrect (e.g. Michel of Kent appears twice) and incomplete (Anne’s two children are not listed though they very definitely are in the line of succession).
    Still, you does Soap Opera better than Queen Lizzy’s gang….

  49. d74 says:

    Even the archipelago of chagos?
    Of course, Diego Garcia is a different matter. Very different.

  50. turcopolier says:

    Something …
    Are you on the Civil List or work for the Beeb? (humor)

  51. turcopolier says:

    Something …
    It must be the Beeb.

  52. turcopolier says:

    Hey! You think I admire that piece of trailer trash? I like the suggestion that Andrew was on Epstein’s payroll for the Israeli honey trap and that his role was as bait for people like Bill who were social climbers.

  53. PRC90 says:

    I think “Archis Bunker Harison Mountbatten-Coburg” might have a better chance at being a Democrat POTUS after 2020 than any of the mind-numbing menagerie of chancers currently on offer (except Tulsi).

  54. Babak Makkinejad says:

    The discussion assumes that the Past exists in substantive form. I am unaware of any metaphysical system that allows that. Certainly neither Aristotle, nor Ibn Sina, nor Aquainas, nor Spinoza, nor Whitehead accept that. It is an entertaining possibility though.

  55. doug says:

    Epstein apparently had cameras hidden all around his properties.
    Reminds me of Juvenal’s “Quis custodiet ipsos custodies” Talk about a high value target/asset.

  56. Something To Think About says:

    Neither. I’m just curious as to why there are such obvious omissions in the list (Princess Anne’s offspring, and Prince Edward’s and, as you noted, little Archie).
    As near as I can tell the answers are:
    a) Anne’s offspring don’t make the list because her then-husband declined a peerage.
    b) Edward’s offspring don’t make the list because he was made an Earl and not (as is custom) a Duke
    c) Harry’s offspring didn’t make the list because… errr… he didn’t make the list. I have no idea why.
    Such a funny family. Xmas get-togethers must be a hoot or the most boring event on earth. Not sure which, but I am certain I’ll never have the opportunity to find out.

  57. Something To Think About says:

    Ah, OK, I dug deeper and I think I understand why Archie isn’t a Royal: he is the great-grandson of the current sovereign, and at the great-grandson level it is only the progeny of the first-born grandson who makes the cut.
    So when Elizabeth passes away and (presuming) Charles becomes King then everyone moves up one level and at that point Archie does become Royalty because he will be the grandson of the sovereign.
    I think.
    Which leads me to wonder what happens to Beatrice and Eugenie?
    Once the Queen dies do they lose their Royal status? Or is that something that, once given, is retained no matter how much circumstance changes?
    It has to be the latter, otherwise the current Queen’s cousins would have ceased to be Royals when she was crowned.

  58. Ishmael Zechariah says:

    Could you please post the name of the actual tale? “A shade too much sex and violence for general release” is intriguing. Mayhap the tale does outperform the Epstein/Maxwell saga in sex and violence, but I doubt it.
    BTW, is the “current heir” the bright lad who used an unsecured telephone to chat with his paramour? If so, he has not missed much…
    Ishmael Zechariah

  59. Factotum says:

    Fun travel romp book – Outposts by Simon Winchester – he wanted to visit all remaining Empire outposts and it took him over five years to make all the arrangements – which I believe meant bribing someone after several failed attempts to finally get to Diego Garcia.
    Myself, I recently circled Pitcairn Island (no landings allowed) and was informed UK was running very attractive immigration inducements for any and all who wanted to add to the dwindling Pitcairn gene pool – same problems with Tristan da Cuhna (bucket list) – not a robust enough of a gene pool left. Starting to get a little squirrely due to in-breeding. Good reason the young ladies love the non-native oil workers who come to the Falklands.
    And you thought the royals were too in bred – go out to the remaining colonies with your 23 and Me test kits to see what it is really like out there.

  60. Factotum says:

    Epstein might have gotten killed for doing something like that. (PS See Louder with Crowder website, who tested the physics of Epstein’s jail sell “hanging”.) Latest is one of the Epstein guards is now willing to talk.

  61. Kurt Van Vlandren says:

    Pence didn’t seem to have any worries.

  62. Babak Makkinejad says:

    That tabloid was employing the same methods against the Prince as the post-Invasion Communist Government in Czechoslovakia was employing against the remnants of Dubcek government officials. Truly drplorabe conduct in the name of Press Freedom.

  63. Just a day in the life of the average princeling, as related in year 755 of the AS Chronicle. I permitted myself a few liberties with the text.
    I’m not that well up on our Royalty but I think Andrew, the man you’re referring to, is the brother of Charles, the heir to the throne. Whatever they’ve been getting up to I doubt either have lived life to the full as it was lived in 755. Have any of us?
    I suppose if we had we wouldn’t be here. Very high casualty rate in 755.

  64. Cortes says:

    Was not the Habsburg royalty the Germanic ideal? With interbreeding ensuring continuity of succession among increasingly moronic “rulers”?
    And old Queen Victoria didn’t do badly either in questions of issue as Barbara Tuchman (August 1914) and others noted

Comments are closed.