#England property tax

[top10estateagentsuk]

Apply for a Repayment of the Non-UK Resident Stamp Duty Land Tax Surcharge in England and Northern Ireland

Check if you can and how to apply for a repayment if you’re a non-residential purchaser of property in England and Northern Ireland.

Who Can Apply

You or your estate agents can apply for a repayment of the surcharge paid on a property if all the purchasers are individuals and have spent 183 days in the UK in any continuous 365-day period:

Starting no more than 364 days before the effective date of the transaction.

Ending no more than 365 days after the effective date of the transaction.

The effective date of the transaction is usually the completion date. You must apply for the repayment within 2 years of the effective date of the transaction.

What Information You’ll Need

To apply for a repayment, you will need the following details:

Bank Account Information: UK bank account and sort code details for the recipient of the payment.

Unique Transaction Reference Number (UTRN): From the Stamp Duty Land Tax return submitted when the property was purchased.

Effective Date of Purchase: Usually the completion date.

SDLT Amount Paid: Including the non-resident surcharge.

Purchase Price: If it’s a freehold property (or other ‘consideration’ if the transaction included goods, works, services, debt release, etc.).

Total Lease Premium: If it’s a leasehold property.

Net Present Value Calculation: Used when the SDLT was calculated if it’s a new lease.

If you’ve already reclaimed the higher rate on additional dwellings, you’ll need the amount of SDLT due after the refund. You may need to ask your solicitor or conveyancer for these details.

If You Are an Agent Acting for the Purchaser

Estate Agents will need a document signed by the purchaser confirming authority to apply for a repayment on their behalf. This letter of authority should specify if the repayment is to be paid into an account other than the purchaser’s and include the relevant account details. You’ll need to upload an image of this signed document with your online application.

How to Apply for a Repayment

Your application requests HMRC to amend the Stamp Duty Land Tax return for the property. You’ll be asked to certify that the amendment is correct.

There are two ways to apply depending on whether you have a Government Gateway user ID and password:

With Government Gateway: Use your user ID and password if you’ve registered for Self Assessment or filed a tax return online.

Without Government Gateway: Apply via email if you do not have a Government Gateway user ID.

Ensure to save your application and return to it later if needed. Only apply by email if you do not have a Government Gateway user ID.

Need Assistance?

If you find the application process challenging or prefer professional assistance, consider contacting the best estate agents in the UK. They can provide expert guidance and help streamline the application process.

[head-post]

Tax cut temptation: Sunak promises ‘cautious’ cuts ahead of autumn statement

UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said his government would turn to tax cuts once inflation falls, speaking ahead of this week’s Budget update when Treasury Secretary Jeremy Hunt was expected to announce how he would boost the stagnant economy.

Rishi Sunak noted on Monday:

Now that inflation is halved and our growth is stronger, meaning revenues are higher, we can begin the next phase and turn our attention to cutting tax.

Sunak said his government had to prioritise reducing the tax burden. He emphasised that he would not repeat the unfunded tax cut plan that his predecessor Liz Truss announced last year, which caused turmoil in bond markets. Sunak said the government would cut taxes gradually and would not do anything that would increase inflation. He added:

You can trust me when I say we can responsibly start to cut taxes.

Read more HERE

[linguisticdiscovery]

Ways English borrowed words from Latin

Latin has been influencing English since before English existed!

Here’s a non-exhaustive list of ways that English got vocabulary from Latin:

early Latin influence on the Germanic tribes: The Germanic tribes borrowed words from the Romans while still in continental Europe, before coming to England.

camp, wall, pit, street, mile, cheap, mint, wine, cheese, pillow, cup, linen, line, pepper, butter, onion, chalk, copper, dragon, peacock, pipe, bishop

Roman occupation of England: The Celts borrowed words from the Romans when the Romans invaded England, and the Anglo-Saxons later borrowed those Latin words from the Celts.

port, tower, -chester / -caster / -cester (place name suffix), mount

Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons: Roman missionaries to England converted the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity and brought Latin with them.

altar, angel, anthem, candle, disciple, litany, martyr, mass, noon, nun, offer, organ, palm, relic, rule, shrine, temple, tunic, cap, sock, purple, chest, mat, sack, school, master, fever, circle, talent

Norman Conquest: The Norman French invaded England in 1066 under William the Conqueror, making Norman French the language of the state. Many words were borrowed from French, which had evolved out of Latin.

noble, servant, messenger, feast, story, government, state, empire, royal, authority, tyrant, court, council, parliament, assembly, record, tax, subject, public, liberty, office, warden, peer, sir, madam, mistress, slave, religion, confession, prayer, lesson, novice, creator, saint, miracle, faith, temptation, charity, pity, obedience, justice, equity, judgment, plea, bill, panel, evidence, proof, sentence, award, fine, prison, punishment, plead, blame, arrest, judge, banish, property, arson, heir, defense, army, navy, peace, enemy, battle, combat, banner, havoc, fashion, robe, button, boots, luxury, blue, brown, jewel, crystal, taste, toast, cream, sugar, salad, lettuce, herb, mustard, cinnamon, nutmeg, roast, boil, stew, fry, curtain, couch, screen, lamp, blanket, dance, music, labor, fool, sculpture, beauty, color, image, tone, poet, romance, title, story, pen, chapter, medicine, pain, stomach, plague, poison

The Renaissance: The intense focus on writings from classical antiquity during the Renaissance led to the borrowing of numerous words directly from Latin.

atmosphere, disability, halo, agile, appropriate, expensive, external, habitual, impersonal, adapt, alienate, benefit, consolidate, disregard, erupt, exist, extinguish, harass, meditate

The Scientific Revolution: The need for new technical and scientific terms led to many neoclassical compounds formed from Classical Greek and Latin elements, or new uses of Latin prefixes.

automobile, transcontinental, transformer, prehistoric, preview, prequel, subtitle, deflate, component, data, experiment, formula, nucleus, ratio, structure

Not to mention most borrowings from other Romance languages, such as Spanish or Italian, which also evolved from Latin.

Further Reading: A history of the English language (Baugh & Cable)

[whencyclopedia]

American Revolution

The American Revolution (1765-1789) was a period of political upheaval in the Thirteen Colonies of British North America. Initially a protest over parliamentary taxes, it blossomed into a rebellion and led, ultimately, to the birth of the United States. Rooted in the ideas of the Enlightenment, the Revolution played an important role in the emergence of modern Western democracies.

Origins: Parliament & the American Identity

In February 1763, the Seven Years' War – or the French and Indian War as the North American theater was called – came to an end. As part of the peace agreement, the vanquished Kingdom of France ceded its colony of New France (Canada) as well as all its colonial territory east of the Mississippi River to its victorious rival, Great Britain. While this left Britain as the dominant colonial power in North America, this newfound supremacy came at a cost, namely a massive war debt. To offset the debt, the British Parliament decided to levy new taxes on the Thirteen Colonies along the eastern seaboard of North America. Much of the war had been fought defending these colonies, after all, and Parliament decided that the colonists should help shoulder the empire's financial burden.

Prior to this decision, Parliament had adhered to an unofficial policy of 'salutary neglect' when dealing with the American colonies. This meant that, despite their royal governors, the colonies were largely left to manage their own affairs, with colonial legislatures overseeing governance and taxation. The influence of these legislatures often equaled if not eclipsed the power of the colony's royally appointed governor. Due to differing foundational and developmental circumstances, each colony maintained its own identity – the Puritan society of New England, the Dutch origins of New York, and the tobacco economy of Virginia, for example, all influenced the formation of their colonial identities. Despite viewing themselves as separate from one another, the colonies were loosely bound by their shared ties to Britain and had united in common defense multiple times during the last century of colonial wars.

At the same time, the American colonists considered themselves Britons, and proudly so. After the Glorious Revolution of 1689, and the constitutional reforms that went with it, the British were viewed as the freest people in the world; they were guaranteed a right to representative government (Parliament) as well as the right to self-taxation. The colonists believed that these 'rights of Englishmen' extended to them, as befitting of their English blood and allegiance to the English king; indeed, many of these rights were echoed in the colonies' own charters. The idea that Parliament could directly tax the colonies, therefore, went against this notion; since no Americans were represented in Parliament, Parliament had no constitutional authority to tax them (i.e. taxation without representation). Parliament, of course, disagreed, arguing that the Americans were virtually represented, as was the case with the thousands of Englishmen who owned no property and could not vote. It was this fundamental disagreement over the Americans' rights and liberties – expressed in the guise of taxation – that lay at the heart of the American Revolution and the birth of the United States.

Continue reading...

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

On this day in 1787, thirty-nine brave men signed the proposed U.S. Constitution, recognizing all who are born in the United States or by naturalization, have become citizens

+

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 17, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Sep 18, 2024

In 1761, 55-year-old Benjamin Franklin attended the coronation of King George III and later wrote that he expected the young monarch’s reign would “be happy and truly glorious.” Fifteen years later, in 1776, he helped to draft and then signed the Declaration of Independence. An 81-year-old man in 1787, he urged his colleagues at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia to rally behind the new plan of government they had written. 

“I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them,” he said, “For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.”

The framers of the new constitution hoped it would fix the problems of the first attempt to create a new nation. During the Revolutionary War, the Second Continental Congress had hammered out a plan for a confederation of states, but with fears of government tyranny still uppermost in lawmakers’ minds, they centered power in the states rather than in a national government. 

The result—the Articles of Confederation—was a “firm league of friendship” among the 13 new states, overseen by a congress of men chosen by the state legislatures and in which each state had one vote. The new pact gave the federal government few duties and even fewer ways to meet them. Indicating their inclinations, in the first substantive paragraph the authors of the agreement said: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” 

Within a decade, the states were refusing to contribute money to the new government and were starting to contemplate their own trade agreements with other countries. An economic recession in 1786 threatened farmers in western Massachusetts with the loss of their farms when the state government in the eastern part of the state refused relief; in turn, when farmers led by Revolutionary War captain Daniel Shays marched on Boston, propertied men were so terrified their own property would be seized that they raised their own army for protection. 

The new system clearly could not protect property of either the poor or the rich and thus faced the threat of landless mobs. The nation seemed on the verge of tearing itself apart, and the new Americans were all too aware that both England and Spain were standing by, waiting to make the most of the opportunities such chaos would create.

And so, in 1786, leaders called for a reworking of the new government centered not on the states, but on the people of the nation represented by a national government. The document began, “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union….” 

The Constitution established a representative democracy, a republic, in which three branches of government would balance each other to prevent the rise of a tyrant. Congress would write all “necessary and proper” laws, levy taxes, borrow money, pay the nation’s debts, establish a postal service, establish courts, declare war, support an army and navy, organize and call forth “the militia to execute the Laws of the Union” and “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” 

The president would execute the laws, but if Congress overstepped, the president could veto proposed legislation. In turn, Congress could override a presidential veto. Congress could declare war, but the president was the commander in chief of the army and had the power to make treaties with foreign powers. It was all quite an elegant system of paths and tripwires, really.

A judicial branch would settle disputes between inhabitants of the different states and guarantee every defendant a right to a jury trial.

In this system, the new national government was uppermost. The Constitution provided that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States,” and promised that “the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion….”

Finally, it declared: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

“I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such,” Franklin said after a weary four months spent hashing it out, “because I think a general Government necessary for us,” and, he said, it “astonishes me…to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our…States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats.” 

“On the whole,” he said to his colleagues, “I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility—and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.”

On September 17, 1787, they did. 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[itsravenbitch]

I'm done. I'm done with the struggle, I'm done being afraid of my own power. I'm getting in the void today and living the life of my dreams.

I scripted it already. I just want to slide right into my new life with ease. Investments have paid off. I have millions. My financial paperwork will be tucked in the safe in my closet along with some 10k stacks of USD, EUR, GBP, and CNY...30 gold bars and stacks of nicely stored Silver Coins. Throw in some Copper Couns and Titanium Bars for diversity. Self storage cause I'm a Dragon.

In this safe the paperwork will be for my equity portfolios in Blackrock and Fidelity as well as my automatic Treasury Bill portfolios which churn about $10million of liquid USD in interest generated income (currently 600k a year). I'll also have the check books for my 10 liquid cash bank accounts/money market accounts, which always have 250k in them each...my independent financial advisor in NYC makes sure of it...also my tax guy. I visit with them once a month and take a long weekend to enjoy NYC and New England.

I haven't bought any houses yet. Still shopping. Still wondering where I want my routines to be set. But I will be in the process of buying my Mother and Sister properties...also setting up some cash transfers for my friends...anonymously ofc. They'll know I'm good, but I'm keeping all my shit private.

I'm gonna be a dragon. One unified by light and dark. A witch. A curator. An explorer of the multiverse. I will spoil TF outta my family and friends. Live by example and inspire others. Explore all studies of this reality concept and make my life a masterful piece of art. I'm not a gaudy rich person, I'm intentional and tasteful. Luxury that is feng shui.

I've been here all along. And I'm now getting in the vehicle that will ground me into this reality.

ain’t gon lie you kinda lost me.. but i love to see ppl finally be done w the bullshit of the same cycle

[on-partiality]

Today's the 250th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party so here's some information on the Sons of Liberty, the lead up to the Boston Tea Party and what happened after!

apologies for any inaccuracies, I wrote this pretty late

The conflict between the American colonies and New England started after the French and Indian war ended with the Treaty of Paris on the 10th of February, 1763. The French and Indian war started because of conflicting territory claims in North America between the British and the French. Originally it was fought between only the British Americans and the French colonists with Native Americans helping on either side (especially with the French because they were severely outnumbered). However two years into the war the United Kingdom - except for ireland - decided enough was enough and officially declared a war with France which started a large world-wide conflict over many territories. In the end, the war was won by the Colonial Americans and British, the French lost all of their North American territory and what used to be their territory was split somewhat evenly between the Spanish and the British but that was only sorted out after the British fought in a war against the Spanish called the Anglo-Spanish war (the first one). So a victory, that sounds good for America right? Wrong. Wars are expensive, maintaining an army is expensive and the British were dealing with many other wars in all different territories at around the same time so England had a national debt of nearly 177.645 MILLION modern day USD.

England had a HUGE poverty crisis. They had to come up with a way to get money and quickly so on April the 5th 1764 the British parliament amended their pre-existing Sugar and Molasses Act. A tax on the importation of wine, molasses, indigo and sugar from places that weren't part of Britain, mainly the non-British Caribbean. This act also banned all foreign rum. Then on March the 22nd, 1765 the British parliament passed the stamp act. A tax on playing cards, newspapers, legal documents. The main problem with this tax was that it couldn't be paid in the paper money used in the 13 colonies, it had to be paid off using the British Sterling which wasn't easy to obtain in America. That and paper was possibly the most important resource in the 18th century. Later in October 1765, a Stamp Act Congress was held in Philadelphia to discuss all of the problems with this act. Then on March the 24th the British passed the Quartering Act which stated that if British troops want to stay at your house you have to provide them with food and let them inside of your house. This was a clear invasion of two very basic rights of Englishmen, private property and personal security.

The Americans fought back against these acts like with Boston's non-importation agreement where merchants from Boston agreed not to buy or sell anything from/to Britain and the Golden Hill riot in New York and the Gaspée Affair which was when a group burned a British ship while the soldiers were off looking for smugglers in Rhode Island, the group was then accused of treason. The most notable of all of these protests though was the later Boston Tea Party.

The Boston Tea Party happened because of a group called the Sons of Liberty which was created in 1765 out of a strong hatred of the Stamp Act. They believed that it was ridiculous that the British could tax the Americans when the Americans didn't even have a representative in parliament, their phrase was 'no taxation without representation'. There's a lot of dispute over what kind of organisation the Sons of Liberty actually was. I might go into all of the theories in another post but for the moment if you want to come up with your own idea on it I suggest looking into them yourself, for this post I'm just going to call them a group or organisation because it's pretty ambiguous. Anyway, the Sons of Liberty usually met at liberty poles/liberty trees which are believed to have been marked as meeting places using the Sons of Liberty's flag. The group was founded in Boston in the Massachusetts Bay colony and it's leader was Samuel 'Sam' Adams.

The Sons of Liberty's first big really move was to burn an effigy of the local Stamp Act enforcer, Andrew Oliver and then burn his office and destroyed the house of his associate. The group's protests were more often then not violent but they got their points across. It didn't help when the Boston Massacre happened in 1770, which only further outraged the colonists, expect the Boston Massacre to get it's own in depth post one day because the court trial was super interesting. Then on the 10th of May, 1773 the British made another act called the Tea Act which made it so that the colonists had to pay more for tea that wasn't legally imported. The Tea Act was meant to help the British East India Tea Company because they were making most of Britains money and they'd gone into a huge debt which caused 20-30 English banks to collapse and started the British Credit Crisis of 1772-1773. The problem was that because the imported tea from Britain was really cheap people didn't buy from local businesses which caused farmers to go completely bankrupt. The Tea Act was the final straw for the Sons of Liberty and many Americans.

Britain sent a shipment of East India Company Tea to America and all of the American colonies that the tea was going to be sent to convinced the people on the ship to resign except for Massachusetts. So the Dartmouth, a ship full of tea arrived in Boston Harbour, Samuel Adams called for a meeting at Fanueuil Hall and thousands of people turned up so they had to move meeting places. During the meeting the Colonists discussed possible resolutions, they decided to have a medium group of men watching the tea to make sure it wouldn't be unloaded and pleaded for the ship to leave. The governor of Massachusetts refused to let the ship leave and two more ships arrived. On December the 16th, 1773, Samuel Adams met with the people of Massachusetts again to tell them about the governors refusal, the meeting caused total fury amongst all of the colonists.

In protest of the Tea Act and all of the other taxes the British had put on the Americans, the people ran out of the meeting room, some of them put on Native American costumes both in an attempt to conceal their identity because what they were about to do was illegal and as a symbolic choice to show that America's their country, not Britain. They then ran onto the 3 tea ships while Samuel Adams was telling everyone to calm down and stay for the end of the meeting. And spent 3 hours hurling all of the chests of tea into the water.

The British did not respond well, they believed that the Colonists needed to be punished so they passed the infamous Intolerable Acts which consisted of the Boston Port Act, meant to force Boston to pay for the tea by closing the port until the people of Boston paid for the tea which the Colonists argued was unfair because it was punishing the whole population for something only about half of them did, the Massachusetts Government Act which changed the way that the government of Massachusetts worked by giving people appointed by the British Parliament/King far more power, this made it easier for the British government to manage the Massachusetts Bay colony from England, the Administration of Justice Acts which state that any accused Royal officials can get a trial in England if they don't believe that they would be judged fairly in Massachusetts - which seems like a strange thing to add given how the Boston Massacre trial with John Adams went? - And I've already talked about the last intolerable act, the Quartering act which states that you have to let British troops stay in your house if they want to and you have to give them food.

[horizon-verizon]

daenaera's parents would be a white woman and a black man if we follow the HOTD line, so daenaera would probably be mixed race ?

I heard that in England, children of interracial Black-White parents aren't considered "Black" either legally or socially. Instead they are considered just "mixed". She'd still be Black in the American racial system, as well as "mixed race", which itself is not a separate racial category in the U.S. like "Asian", "Pacific islander", "Black", "white" are. It's used more as a descriptor before those legal terms, like "mixed raced Black person". Because in the U.S., what defines you as legally "Black" (therefore after years of slavery laws like that, visually and socially "Black as well") is the "one-drop rule" and grandfather clause. And HotD is American, writing primarily for a U.S. to Canadian based audience, with English (Brits) people--or any English speakers with close ties to England and therefore colonization/transatlantic slave trade & slavery. Even with its mainly BR actors. Its writers are mostly American/U.S. raised. Even the orig series is written by an American, GRRM, writing for MOSTLY an American audience (yes people from all walks of life love and read the books and it's inspired on European, mostly British, history, I'm talking about TARGET audience).

History/Race system in the USA

The one drop rule is/was:

the nation's answer to the question 'Who is black?" has long been that a black is any person with any known African black ancestry. This definition reflects the long experience with slavery and later with Jim Crow segregation. In the South it became known as the "one-drop rule,'' meaning that a single drop of "black blood" makes a person a black. It is also known as the "one black ancestor rule," some courts have called it the "traceable amount rule," and anthropologists call it the "hypo-descent rule," meaning that racially mixed persons are assigned the status of the subordinate group. This definition emerged from the American South to become the nation's definition, generally accepted by whites and blacks. Blacks had no other choice. As we shall see, this American cultural definition of blacks is taken for granted as readily by judges, affirmative action officers, and black protesters as it is by Ku Klux Klansmen.

AND (source)

enacted by seven Southern states between 1895 and 1910 to deny suffrage to African Americans. It provided that those who had enjoyed the right to vote prior to 1866 or 1867, and their lineal descendants, would be exempt from recently enacted educational, property, or tax requirements for voting. Because the former slaves had not been granted the franchise until the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870, those clauses worked effectively to exclude Black people from the vote but assured the franchise to many impoverished and illiterate whites.

Which really came from an earlier precedent of slavers enforcing many rules of any person born from an African woman/enslaved woman would be considered "naturally" enslaved themselves. Tying up Black people to slavery through their traceable ancestry, once more, at first and continued to be enforced to one's being born to an enslaved woman...bc you can't really hide who a baby's mother is, who masters already had full control over (and r*ped, so they had to find a way to keep the source of their unpaid labor "yielding" without having to acknowledge, fully, that the children were of their own "blood"):

[source] Regardless of their white paternity, children born to enslaved women inherited their mothers’ status as slaves.

--

[source] Starting 1662, the colony of Virginia and then other English colonies established that the legal status of a slave was inherited through the mother. As a result, the children of enslaved women legally became slaves.

--

[source] In just seventy years, the number of enslaved people in North America more than quadrupled. Such "natural increase" was only possible through enslaved women’s frequent reproduction, whose offspring were born legally enslaved. In 1662 the colony of Virginia enacted the law of partus sequitur ventrem, meaning that all children born to an enslaved woman would automatically be born a slave no matter what their father’s legal status was, and a similar law was adopted in South Carolina in 1740 and in Georgia in 1755. Partus sequitur ventrem hence spread across British North America and the Atlantic world, but only in the United States did the enslaved population increase so rapidly.

Race and racism inherently doesn't make sense bc it was never meant to. It was about white people creating categories they want to redefine every time it's convenient for them.

Back to ASoIaF

Even still, even if we somehow forever and always decided that Daenaera was "just mixed" and not "Black", she'd still not have a "purely" "white" ancestry and she wouldn't look "white". So green stans and racists/misogynoirists in the fandom would and will always prefer Jaehaera be Aegon's "true" wife.

Just as they do and did for arguing Baela would fare better being a Lady of her own house, that Rhaenyra "stole" her seat when that was just Corlys deciding what he wanted for his own house under tradition, and Baela somehow wouldn't benefit from being Queen of the Seven Kingdoms under Jace but somehow Helaena would?! Mind you, Baela, Laena, and Rhaena are all "mixed" or "mixed race", bc Laena's mother was Rhaenys AND Baela/Rhaena's father was Daemon. Both Targs who are white in the show.

Finally look to Megan Markle's treatment in the UK despite she is mixed race AND she's not considered the same sort of "Black" there. Her ancestry, having a Black parent/grandparents was enough; race by itself has always been INTRINSICALLY Abt ancestry, heritage, a connection to Africa bc it came from the British/European own ancestry-defined social/class systems that STILL exist today in a different phases.

So...

[denimbex1986]

'Irish actors claim they have been treated like the poor relations in the film industry for decades despite big government tax breaks for major studios.

LA-based actor Alan Smyth revealed that Colin Farrell, Ruth Negga and Cillian Murphy have signed a petition for fair and equal pay for native performers and crew.

Over 2,500 people have added their signatures online.

It says the Irish diaspora in the US and worldwide strongly support the efforts of Irish Actors Equity, which is in talks with several government ministers to secure a guarantee “that Irish performers will not be subject to lesser terms and conditions regarding their intellectual property rights than international performers in similar roles”.

“This, unfortunately, has been the case for many years,” it states.

The petition is still open as Irish Equity plans to hold a solidarity rally with the striking SAG-AFTRA union and the Writers Guild of America today.

Smyth, who is from Dundalk, has first-hand experience of the set-up on both sides of the Atlantic. He has reaped the benefits of the American system where actors traditionally got residual cheques whenever their performances are aired.

The threat now, he says, is that the so-called “streamer” networks are imposing drastic cuts to the value of the residuals.

Hence, the strikes.

“It’s a lot worse in Ireland,” said the actor, who has starred in a number of big TV dramas, including CSI: NY and Criminal Minds.

“The system in Ireland is that the Irish cast and crew for the most part, unless it’s Colin or Cillian, are put on buyout contracts so don’t get residual payments.

“The awful thing about it is the Irish Government gives tax breaks to film and TV productions. Within the productions, the Irish cast and crew are paid far less than anyone brought over from England or the US. It’s 100pc discriminatory.

“Colin, Cillian and Ruth Negga have got behind the petition. They know how hard it is until you get to a point where you’re doing really, really well. I can really see how hurtful it is in Ireland.”

Actor Gerry O’Brien lodged a cheque for $800 (€735) yesterday for his role as an Irish man in Pirates of the Caribbean years ago. The payment covers just a quarter of the year.

He got a US contract for the job, rather than the typical Irish buyout one.

In contrast, he has earned just €54 in residuals in the last 20 years here. That was for an RTÉ TV series.

O’Brien said Equity wants a contract for Irish actors like that on offer to their British counterparts. The coveted UK contract sets out minimum pay rates, residual arrangements and other terms and conditions.

Irish production companies offer the buyout contracts on behalf of the major international studios when they are in town, he says.

A Dublin-based actor (27) did not want to be named for fear he would be “blacklisted” when going for jobs.

He has been following the Hollywood strike very closely.

“It shines a light on just how unfair the industry is,” he said.

“Those at the top are earning incredible amounts of money and profit. In a large part, it is due to those at the bottom scraping a living.

“I graduated from drama school in 2017. Last year, I made the most money I ever made working as an actor and that was €14,000. Obviously that is not sustainable.

“If you work on an Irish film, you get paid for the day of work and never see another penny. I routinely sign off my rights for €600 or €700 a day.

“I’m delighted that Cillian Murphy and Colm Meaney are coming out in support of small fry actors like myself.”

Actor Owen Roe has won many theatre awards during his career and his film appearances including Breakfast on Pluto, Intermission, Wide Open Spaces and Michael Collins.

He said actors here are “not prepared to go on strike” but it is an opportunity to inform younger ones of their rights.

“It’s far more competitive as well . There is AI and all those things. The whole buyout situation is not good for us.”

He was glad to see Cillian Murphy and other stars walk out of the Oppenheimer premiere in support of their US union.

“They don’t have to financially, I’d imagine,” he said. “It gives confidence to people who feel they are being exploited.

“I think it will be interesting to see what happens in America. If the whole thing of buyouts and residuals gets sorted. The attitude that we’re cheaper is offensive,” he said.'

[scotianostra]

On November 5th 1667 The borders custom of paying blackmail to avoid kidnapping was outlawed; the local population was urged to hound such criminals from the community.

The term blackmail itself was originated in the Scottish Borders meaning payments rendered in exchange for protection from thieves and marauders.

In the 16th century, blackmail was a tribute paid by farmers along the border of Scotland and England to freebooters for protection from their raids. The freebooters are often identified as the Border reivers, descended from both Scottish and English families in the region. They resorted to pillage and plunder, apparently, due to the disruptions and devastations wreaked by the ongoing war between the two peoples in the late Middle Ages. The Oxford English Dictionary first dates the term to the 1530s in Robert Pitcairn’s Ancient Criminal Trials in Scotland.

The "mail" part of blackmail derives from Middle English male meaning "rent or tribute". This tribute was paid in goods or labour. Alternatively, it may be derived from two Scottish Gaelic words blathaich - to protect; and mal - tribute or payment.

Some etymologists point to black rent and white rent. Black rent, so the theory goes, could be paid in work, goods, livestock, or produce, the color associated with cattle or the ‘baser’ quality of the forms of payment. White rent, meanwhile, was paid in money, like silver, whose metal was once called “white.” Black rent was an indeed an earlier (1420s) form of blackmail, but the OED enters white rent as a variant of quit-rent, a kind of historical property tax that exempt (quit) renters from other obligations concerning the land under feudal law. Folk etymology probably accounts for the confusion.

Blackmail is said to signify payment in cattle. Whitemail in silver money. [nb elsewhere ���greenmail” is payment for land]

More likely, the black in blackmail refers to the “illegal” (black market) or “evil” (black magic) nature of the extortion.

James I first tried to rein in the activities of Border Reivers in the early 1600′s , although his Grandfather, James V had previously hung around 50 Reivers including John Armstrong of Gilnockie in 1530, I think the upsurge of violence during the Bishops Wars and the civil war in general will have seen an upsurge in their activities for a time.

Interestingly I can only find one source for the outlawing of blackmailing, but the Reivers in general started to become a spent force following the Restoration and long-running lawlessness by Moss troopers, who were basically the Reivers of the late 17th century,. In 1662 the Moss Troopers Act had started the clamp down of the lawlessness on the English side of the border. A series of acts during the next century covered the whole country, the original acts stated that “the notorious thieves and spoil-takers in Northumberland or Cumberland were to be transported to America, there to remaine and not to returne"

Border Clans involved included Armstrongs, Irvings, Bells, Grahams, Beatties, Littles, Maxwells, Elliott's, Crosers, Nixons and Hendersons, not all were outlaws, I am generalising a wee bit.

[on-a-lucky-tide]

Them: What radicalised you?

This shit.

This happens daily in this country. Property is elevated consistently above human life. Rapists of children go free. Murderers and abusers go free. The government's "difficult decisions" always disproportionately affect the poor and never the rich (see the Labour governments cuts in public spending - more after 14 years of Tory cuts - rather than a tax on the rich, like JK Rowling who is celebrating the loss of healthcare for trans kids).

But climate protestors planning a protest? Five years of jail. Pro-Palestinian march? Agitators. Tommy fucking Robinson though, the Nazi cunt, he's a patriot? Fuck this.

When I say I hate this country and its people, I really mean it. I hate it. There is nothing good or redeemable about England. Nothing. And wider "Britain" is on thin fucking ice.

[best-nun-tournament]

Round 1, Match 20

King Richard and Prince John (Robin Hood/English history) vs Cleopatra VII and Ptolemy XIII (Egyptian history)

Propaganda and history lesson under break.

King Richard and Prince John

Richard goes off to fight in the Crusades and John plots behind his back to steal and exploit the kingdom!

Poll Runner's Note: That's the Robin Hood legend, and there is some truth to it: While Richard was off on the crusade, John locked up Richard's chancellor Bishop Longchamp, set up his own royal court, and declared himself Richard's heir, over Richard's choice of their nephew Arthur (age 4). He even tried to have Richard declared legally dead so he could claim the throne (he had in fact been taken captive by the Duke of Austria and was then held for ransom by the Holy Roman Emperor). John left his wife to marry the King of France's sister so he'd support his claim, and basically started a civil war which lasted until Richard finally returned home. And that meant paying 100,000 pounds of silver in ransom. Everyone had to pay 25% of their property, on top of additional taxes.

Richard "forgave" John, in that he didn't have him killed and just confiscated most of his land, but he still officially declared his "hate and malevolence" towards John for over a year.

After Richard died five years later, John introduced yet more taxes, including England's first income tax. Why? To pay for a war with France to get back all the land that was lost when John asked the King of France to help him defeat Richard's supporters. A problem he himself caused by fighting with his brother!

Cleopatra VII and Ptolemy XIII

You know

Poll Runner's Note: I sure do, and now I'm going to tell everyone about it! Ptolemy XII, their father, had five children: Berenice, Cleopatra, Arsinoë, Ptolemy XIII, and Ptolemy XIV. Berenice had usurped Ptolemy XII's rule and was executed when he regained power, making Cleopatra his eldest living child. In his will, he declared that when he died Cleopatra and Ptolemy XIII should get married and reign as co-rulers of Egypt.

Ptolemy XII died when Cleopatra was about 18 and Ptolemy XIII was 11, and right from the start she was not interested in this co-ruler business. She started leaving his name off documents, leaving his face off the coins, and generally acting like she's the only ruler in Egypt. Unfortunately for her, Ptolemy's guardians weren't keen on being demoted from "power behind the throne" to "glorified babysitter", and they deposed Cleopatra and forced her to flee to Syria, where she raised an army and started a war against her brother. It didn't go well for her, and things were looking bad for her until Julius Caesar showed up with his army.

Caesar was 1) Already mad at Ptolemy's advisors for killing Pompey who he'd wanted to spare and 2) famously a huge slut so Cleopatra was pretty easily able to convince him to restore her to power.

It's at this point Arsinoë shows up with her army. She joins forces with Ptolemy XIII, declares herself Queen Arsinoë IV, and beseiges Cleopatra and Caesar in the palace complex. For five brutal months, they battled through the city. The fires are said to be how the Library of Alexandria was lost, which is probably a legend but it was still devastating. Ceasar himself almost drowned while fleeing Arsinoë's forces at the Battle of Pharos Island.

Finally Caesar's allies show up with their armies, and Ptolemy drowned trying to flee across the Nile while Arsinoë was taken prisoner. She was brought back to Rome as part of Caesar's triumph, but her life was spared and she lived out the rest of her days at the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus. This was about five years because Cleopatra later persuaded Mark Antony to have her murdered right there in the temple.

Cleopatra married her youngest brother Ptolemy XIV, before finally poisoning him so she could make her son Caesarion the new Pharaoh.

Cleopatra was at least partially responsible for the deaths of all her siblings except the one her father killed, and the struggles between them were devastating for Egypt and caused a lot of suffering. These are some legitimately awful siblings.

[houseofbrat]

12 JULY 2024: William plays polo at a charity match. Kate and the children do not attend.

William confirms he will attend the Euro final on Sunday, 14 July 2024.

13 JULY 2024: Kate confirms she will attend the men's final at Wimbledon.

14 JULY 2024: Kate attends the Wimbledon men's final with Charlotte and Pippa.

William attends the Euro final with George to watch England lose to Spain.

15 JULY 2024: Katie Nicholl, Vanity Fair, "Kate Middleton Is Now “On Summer Break” After Wimbledon Appearance" [archive link]

Kate Middleton’s appearance at Wimbledon on Sunday delighted tennis and royal fans, but it may be some time before we see Kate in public again. According to royal sources, Prince William and Princess Kate are planning to spend most of the summer “below the radar” at their Norfolk bolthole now that Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis are out of school and Kate continues her course of preventative chemotherapy. While Kensington Palace would not give details on the family’s plans for the summer, a royal source confirmed that the Wales family are now “on summer break.” Sources close to the family say that although they will not be traveling abroad this summer while Kate undergoes treatment, they are excited to visit King Charles and Queen Camilla in Scotland next month. Sunday’s appearance at Wimbledon is likely to be Kate’s last official engagement until later this year.

16 JULY 2024: Will & Kate are looking to hire a new Assistant Private Secretary that can speak "conversational Welsh." [archive link]

Although the new hire would be responsible for Prince William and Catherine's public engagements in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the future King and Queen want their new Assistant Private Secretary to specifically focus on Wales and believe it is "essential" that they speak conversational Welsh. [...] Almost two years after taking on their Wales titles, and after a testing year so far with The Princess' major abdominal surgery and cancer diagnosis, it appears Prince William and Catherine are driving forward with their plans, seeking "specific expertise on Welsh communities, affairs, government, and business". Handled by the largest executive search firm in the United Kingdom, Odgers Berndtson has posted a job advert for an Assistant Private Secretary ("APS"), Wales & UK on behalf of Kensington Palace.

18 JULY 2024: The attempted Donald Trump assassin had searched for images of Kate according to investigation.

23 JULY 2024: William announces more patronages. Kate does not announce any new patronages.

24 JULY 2024: Victoria Ward, The Telegraph, "Prince William refuses to reveal how much tax he pays." [archive link]

The Prince of Wales has chosen not to reveal how much tax he pays on the private income he receives from his vast property portfolio, marking a notable change in approach from when his father was heir to the throne. Prince William’s Duchy of Cornwall estate, the billion-pound business empire he inherited on the death of his grandmother, Elizabeth II, generated profits of £23.6 million in the last financial year. He is understood to pay income tax on the full amount, less household costs, which have also not been disclosed.

26 JULY 2024: Robert Jobson's book excerpt in The Daily Mail, "How the Queen and Charles clashed with William after he refused to stop flying his young family around Britain in his helicopter." [archive link]

One courtier explained: 'The King's relationship with both his sons has been difficult over the years. Even now he is King, with the Prince of Wales, there can be differences of opinion and tensions. Of course, they love each other, but they clash, and sometimes William needs handling with kid gloves.' Another courtier confirmed: 'You have to check first which way the wind is blowing with the prince. They don't see eye to eye on several issues, but why should they? [Prince William's] moment in the top job will come — perhaps he would do well to remember it is not yet. This is His Majesty's time.' When he loses his temper, William is a bit of a shouter — and his father tends to give as good as he gets. The difference these days is that their arguments usually blow over quite quickly. One recent source of disagreement is William's stubborn refusal to take his father's advice on safeguarding the succession. Earlier this year, the King had raised concerns with his son about the wisdom of William using his helicopter to fly his entire family around the country.

27 JULY 2024: People magazine (US), "Prince William and King Charles Clashed Over Use of Helicopter for Kate Middleton and Their Children, New Book Claims". [archive link]

According to Robert Jobson's soon-to-be-released biography, Catherine, The Princess of Wales, the King, 75, “raised concerns” with William, 42, over his helicopter use with Kate Middleton and their children, Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, that sparked a tense disagreement between the pair.  In an excerpt from Jobson’s book, per The Daily Mail, King Charles brought up his worries on the matter after coming to terms with his mortality following his cancer diagnosis, which was announced in February. The King even presented experienced pilot William with “a formal document acknowledging the risks involved and taking full responsibility for his actions” amid their dispute, the new book claims.   Charles’ concerns echoed that of his late mother Queen Elizabeth, who previously requested William not fly with his family on a helicopter from Kensington Palace to his former residence of Anmer Hall in Norfolk, which is a 115-mile journey, according to Robson.  [...] It is also understood that the palace has fully evaluated the risk of the family flying together, compared with implementing a policy where separate travel assets are provided for one or more members of The Prince and Princess of Wales’ family.

30 JULY 2024: The Prince's Trust announces the date for its annual Christmas Carol concert, 09 December 2024.

Hilary Rose, The Times, posts an article about William van Cutsem, friend of Prince William and recently appointed as an adviser to the Duchy of Cornwall. [archive link]

The Earthshot Prize tweets about their third annual Earthshot Prize Innovation Summit, which mentions no commitment by William to attend.

03 AUGUST 2024: Daily Mail's Natasha Livingstone

07 AUGUST 2024: Tom Sykes, The Daily Beast, "Princess Kate Will Focus on Her Kids After ‘Brush With Mortality’: Sources" [archive link]

It is thought the smaller Wales family are unlikely to travel this year to Tresco, a small island off the coast of Cornwall, where they have often spent summer holidays. However, The Daily Beast has been told that the couple are aiming to be in Balmoral either for the opening of the grouse-shooting season on Aug. 12 or shortly thereafter. William and Kate both shoot. One friend of the couple told The Daily Beast: “Kate has been exceptionally open and honest about her health. Making two appearances before the summer break, at Wimbledon and Trooping the Colour, was a clear signal that she is doing well. That is what we are hearing privately as well—it’s not over but there is lots of optimism, lots of positivity.” [...] Another source, a Buckingham Palace insider, said they understood there was no sense that Kate was expected to be back on duty for the traditionally busy period of royal engagements that kicks off in the first week of September and runs through to Christmas.

11 AUGUST 2024: William & Kate appear for less than ten seconds in a video message for Team GB with multiple celebrity appearances, after the end of the Olympics.

13 AUGUST 2024: Lucie Heath writes about the Duchy of Cornwall.

The Duchy of Cornwall’s largest single landholding is 27,300 hectares on Dartmoor, which accounts for approximately one third of the National Park. Last year the Government published an independent review of Dartmoor, which concluded the landscape was “not in a good state”. Dr Alexander Lees, a biodiversity expert at Manchester Metropolitan University, said the Duchy of Cornwall has a big part to play in turning things around at Dartmoor and other sites it owns. “As one of Britain’s biggest landowners, the Duchy of Cornwall is in a position of strength to combat the entwined biodiversity and climate crises. However, massive additional investment in conservation is needed across these landholdings,” he said. Dr Lee said: “clearly there is a need to generate income to leverage restoration and rewilding across the estate”, but added it is “questionable” that some of this income comes from a car dealership when the Duchy has promoted reduced car use through its flagship Poundbury housing estate in Dorset.

14 AUGUST 2024: Rebecca English, Daily Mail, "Why Kate's year has been tougher than anyone realises - and why she's starting to glow again." [archive link]

What most will not appreciate is that Catherine had actually been unwell for some time in the run up to her initial abdominal surgery in January (further details of which have not been made public yet by Kensington Palace). It was only after that ‘planned’ operation, of course, which left her in hospital for two weeks, that her cancer was discovered.

The Daily Beast rehashes the "exclusives" from the Daily Mail.

16 AUGUST 2024: Dan Wootton reiterates that Kate may "NEVER" return to full-time royal duties.

Tusk Trust CEO says William wants to introduce his children to Africa.

"He is very knowledgeable and passionate about conservation and the environment,” Mayhew said. “He has a particular love for Africa. He has been incredibly supportive as our patron and proactive in supporting us. We find ourselves incredibly lucky.” Mayhew plans to meet up with Prince William in Cape Town, South Africa, when the Prince of Wales hosts the fourth annual Earthshot Prize Awards there in November. Soon enough, the Prince of Wales will want to introduce his three children — Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis — to the continent, Mayhew said. “I think it won’t be long before, you know, he will want to introduce them to Africa,” he said.

17 AUGUST 2024: Natasha Anderson, Daily Mail, reports on how Will, Kate, George, Charlotte, and Louis, spent the day at a large Nerf battle. [archive link]

The Royal family had a bit of a rumble last weekend as the Prince and Princess of Wales faced off against their children in a Nerf battle. Prince George, 11, Princes Charlotte, nine, and six-year-old Prince Louis joined in the festivities at the Gone Wild Festival at Holkham Hall, Norfolk for a high-intensity Nerf war with toy guns and smoke bombs. Excitable and 'unforgettable' Louis ran around yelling 'Nerf or nothing, let's do this!', according to Norfolk Nerf Parties boss Georgina Barron. The Princess of Wales, who has been battling cancer, even 'grabbed a Nerf gun, ran around, and played stuck in the mud with her kids', Ms Barron added, noting that hosting the family was the 'biggest honour' and 'unforgettable'. Ms Barron said the royals, who were not photographed at the event, had wanted to enjoy a 'wholesome family day like any other normal family'. Kensington Palace has been approached for comment. 

19 AUGUST 2024: People magazine (US), story about who's who in the Middleton family.

The Mirror, "Kate Middleton's 'tough' side and unlikely inspiration for 'ambitious' plans" [archive link]

The Princess of Wales has rapidly ascended the Royal ranks, becoming a favourite among the Royal Family due to her sense of humour and evident respect for her role. Even during her cancer treatment, she has displayed nothing but strength and determination. Kate, once shy and reserved, has transformed into a confident, playful, and occasionally assertive figure, commanding as much public respect as King Charles or Prince William could ever wish for. This trust that the King places in his "darling daughter-in-law" reportedly leads to her frequently being asked for her opinion due to her relatability.

20 AUGUST 2024: "Princess Charlotte, Lady Louise and the Duchess of Edinburgh go on special trip" [archive link]

Princess Charlotte, Lady Louise and Sophie, the Duchess of Edinburgh went on a special shopping trip in London, according to a source. Charlotte has a good relationship with her great-aunt and the two royals were joined by Sophie's daughter Louise during a trip to Chelsea. The royals headed to the Peter Jones store on King's Road which is said to be one of Charlotte's favourite stores. A source told The Sun: "There is a really warm connection between Sophie and her great-niece, which is very touching."

21 AUGUST 2024: Tom Sykes, The Daily Beast, "Princes William and Harry May Only Reunite at King Charles’ Funeral: Source" [archive link]

Asked about the reports that Harry would not be invited to William’s coronation, the source said: “I believe it 100 percent. Why would William and Kate want all the distraction and circus that his presence would bring? I suspect that William will see Harry one more time in his life in the flesh—at their father’s funeral.” A former Buckingham Palace staffer told The Daily Beast: “Planning for William’s coronation is well underway, and as I understand it there are no plans to invite Harry. It’s hardly surprising when you look at how poisoned the well has become.”

US Weekly (USA) has cover story on William & Camilla, with sourcing from Christopher Andersen's book.

23 AUGUST 2024: People magazine (US), "Prince William's Return to Work Plans Revealed After Summer Break with Kate Middleton and Their Kids" [archive link]

On Aug. 22, Kensington Palace announced that the Prince of Wales, 42, will visit the Homelessness: Reframed exhibit at the Saatchi Gallery in London on Sept. 5. The display highlights the complexities of homelessness across the U.K. and offers the public an opportunity to better understand the stories of individuals who have been affected. Homelessness: Reframed is a collaboration between Prince William's Homewards program, which he launched with the Royal Foundation in June 2023 to help end homelessness for good, the Saatchi Gallery and the Eleven Eleven Foundation. The presentation opened on Aug. 7, and Prince William will visit before it closes on Sept. 20.

25 AUGUST 2024: Kate seen in a car on the way to church 'at Crathie Kirk, Balmoral, Scotland.

Daily Mail, "Inside Kate's slow and steady return to public life: How the Princess of Wales has won over the nation's hearts with appearances at Trooping the Colour, Wimbledon and Crathie Kirk following cancer diagnosis" [archive link]

Her appearance had been in doubt after she missed the final Trooping rehearsal the weekend prior to the celebration, with confirmation that she would attend only given at 6pm the evening before.  [...] And now, Kate has been seen in public for the third time since revealing that she has cancer - just two weeks after her video message praising Team GB.  The royal appeared in high spirits as she was pictured arriving for Sunday service with her husband William at Crathie Kirk today.  William drove the car, smiling as he chatted with his wife and opting for a navy blue suit for the occasion.  The Princess sported the same hat she donned last year for a Sunday church service, when she donned a beige tartan Marlborough trench coat from Holland Cooper with  dark brown wool felt fedora with feathers.

28 AUGUST 2024: The Daily Mail's royal editor, Rebecca English, confirms that William "never planned to" attend the Earthshot Prize Innovation Summit in September 2024.

29 AUGUST 2024: Matt Wilkinson, The Sun, reports that both William and Harry attended their uncle's funeral in Norfolk, "Warring Prince William and Harry REUNITE at their uncle’s funeral after Duke of Sussex makes secret dash to UK" [archive link]

The Duke of Sussex, 39, flew from his US home to join his brother, 42, at the service for Lord Robert Fellowes. A local in Snettisham, Norfolk, said: “We never saw them speak to each other and they kept their distance.” The princes both “discreetly” attended the funeral for Lord Fellowes — who was their mother Diana’s brother-in-law. They were said to have kept their distance from each other and sat at the back of the church. Sources close to US-based Harry had previously claimed he would not attend. But a close family friend said they were “very happy to confirm both princes were there”. Another source told how they only saw them at the end of the service at St Mary’s Church. They said: “I didn’t know they were there. They arrived very discreetly.” One local said: “William and Harry were both there but we never saw them speak to each other and they were keeping their distance.”

TIMELINE:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

[whencyclopedia]

American Revolution

The American Revolution (1765-1789) was a period of political upheaval in the Thirteen Colonies of British North America. Initially a protest over parliamentary taxes, it blossomed into a rebellion and led, ultimately, to the birth of the United States. Rooted in the ideas of the Enlightenment, the Revolution played an important role in the emergence of modern Western democracies.

Origins: Parliament & the American Identity

In February 1763, the Seven Years' War – or the French and Indian War as the North American theater was called – came to an end. As part of the peace agreement, the vanquished Kingdom of France ceded its colony of New France (Canada) as well as all its colonial territory east of the Mississippi River to its victorious rival, Great Britain. While this left Britain as the dominant colonial power in North America, this newfound supremacy came at a cost, namely a massive war debt. To offset the debt, the British Parliament decided to levy new taxes on the Thirteen Colonies along the eastern seaboard of North America. Much of the war had been fought defending these colonies, after all, and Parliament decided that the colonists should help shoulder the empire's financial burden.

Prior to this decision, Parliament had adhered to an unofficial policy of 'salutary neglect' when dealing with the American colonies. This meant that, despite their royal governors, the colonies were largely left to manage their own affairs, with colonial legislatures overseeing governance and taxation. The influence of these legislatures often equaled if not eclipsed the power of the colony's royally appointed governor. Due to differing foundational and developmental circumstances, each colony maintained its own identity – the Puritan society of New England, the Dutch origins of New York, and the tobacco economy of Virginia, for example, all influenced the formation of their colonial identities. Despite viewing themselves as separate from one another, the colonies were loosely bound by their shared ties to Britain and had united in common defense multiple times during the last century of colonial wars.

At the same time, the American colonists considered themselves Britons, and proudly so. After the Glorious Revolution of 1689, and the constitutional reforms that went with it, the British were viewed as the freest people in the world; they were guaranteed a right to representative government (Parliament) as well as the right to self-taxation. The colonists believed that these 'rights of Englishmen' extended to them, as befitting of their English blood and allegiance to the English king; indeed, many of these rights were echoed in the colonies' own charters. The idea that Parliament could directly tax the colonies, therefore, went against this notion; since no Americans were represented in Parliament, Parliament had no constitutional authority to tax them (i.e. taxation without representation). Parliament, of course, disagreed, arguing that the Americans were virtually represented, as was the case with the thousands of Englishmen who owned no property and could not vote. It was this fundamental disagreement over the Americans' rights and liberties – expressed in the guise of taxation – that lay at the heart of the American Revolution and the birth of the United States.

Continue reading...

[borntogayz]

Okay but if you’re saving money by living in Monaco would you then have to get rid of any other property you might have/rent? Like an apartment in England? Because of course mclarens hub is in England so it would make sense to live there, and Oscar used to and so did Lando. Do they have to stay in hotels if they visit the factory? Because I’m assuming it would be pointless to have a property in Monaco to save on tax if you also had to pay tax in England…

[ingek73]

I thought I knew royal greed – but King Charles profiting from the assets of the dead is a disgusting new low

For decades, parliament has been far too lenient about the royal family’s finances. This avaricious practice needs to end

Norman Baker Fri 24 Nov 2023 13.08 CET

Over the centuries, the royals have continually bleated poverty and demanded more money from the taxpayer.’ Photograph: Reuters

As a royal author, I have come across plentiful examples of royal greed. It is standard practice for the royals to seek to minimise their personal expenditure while maximising their income from other sources, normally the public purse.

But the revelation that King Charles III’s personal slush fund, the Duchy of Lancaster, is having its already bulging coffers augmented by the estates of people who die in parts of England with historical links to the royal estate plumbs new depths of disgusting avarice.

Like many so-called traditions, the feudal hangover that is bona vacantia should have been consigned to the dustbin of history centuries ago, but it has been all too tempting for successive royals to preserve this royal fruit machine that pays out again and again. Over the past 10 years, it has collected more than £60m in the funds.

Under this system, the Duchy of Cornwall, owned by Prince William, can claim the assets of people who die in Cornwall intestate – without a will – if no relatives can be found. Charles’s Duchy of Lancaster does the same when their last known residence is within what was historically known as Lancashire county palatine.

Edward VIII found cash from those who died intestate in the boundaries of the duchy was sitting in an account in case claims arose against it. He simply stole a million pounds from it, leaving almost nothing in that kitty.

George VI did very well out of the loyal servicemen who died serving their country in the second world war, who originated from within the confines of the duchy and had no will. “For king and country” took on a whole new meaning.

As disquiet about the practice of bona vacantia grew after the war, the royals announced that moneys collected would henceforth be given to charity – after processing costs had been deducted, of course. In the case of the Duchy of Lancaster, this came to about 4% compared to 15% for the Duchy of Cornwall.

Yet a Guardian investigation now reveals that matters are even worse than we have been led to believe. Put bluntly, we have been lied to. Monies we all thought were going to charity have instead been used to improve properties owned by the duchy, increasing the income stream that flows from them into Charles’s pockets.

We have the most expensive monarchy in Europe by far in terms of state support, and one that benefits from unique tax treatment available to nobody else. No inheritance tax is paid. The so-called private estates of the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are not private enough to pay corporation tax or capital gains tax. Even income tax is only paid voluntarily – if it all – no receipts have ever been made public.

The civil list, which in 2011 gave the royals £7.9m a year, was replaced, after palace lobbying, with the sovereign grant, which 12 years later is up to £86m a year. Over the centuries, the royals have continually bleated poverty and demanded more money from the taxpayer, while at the same time refusing point blank to reveal the extent of their accumulated wealth.

They even refused to provide this information to the last government that seriously tried to dig into this – the Labour government of the mid-1970s, with the then home secretary Roy Jenkins pursuing the matter.

Back in Queen Victoria’s reign, the government was told she was desperately short of cash to undertake her duties so a big uplift was provided. She was not short of cash, and the money provided by the then government was instead used to buy Sandringham and Balmoral. I recognise that behaviour from my time in parliament. It’s called fiddling your expenses.

My calculations suggest that the king is worth as much as £2bn and probably more. The bulk of this has come from excessive generosity on behalf of the taxpayer, either through direct handouts or indirectly through unique tax exemptions. But antiquated and indefensible arrangements such as bona vacantia have played their part too.

Parliament, which over the decades has been far too deferential, far too trusting, far too easy going, needs to get a grip. The disgusting existence of royal windfalls from dead people should be ended forthwith. The duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster should be transferred immediately to the publicly owned crown estate; they only escaped from being transferred along with other royal lands in 1760 because they were then deemed worthless. Plainly, this is no longer the case. The public accounts committee should begin a thorough investigation into the funding and wealth of the royals.

Monarchists should worry. Opening the doors on royal finances and practices will reveal a terrible stench.

in regards to: