#make us rich

[galerymod]

What a great, rich lady! She was lucky enough to receive a little state support.

mod

We would absolutely be grinning from ear to ear if the state were to give us so much money.

The British royal family is seen as an integral part of established class society and its continued existence is supported by an annual state subsidy. It is believed that without this financial support, the royal family would not be able to maintain their lifestyle.

What a load of bullshit.... they even have a voice in the house of lords when it comes to taxing the royal family. Full insight into the potential legislation beforehand.... fuck is that cool, or course with veto right.

mod

What the British pay for their monarchy.

Profits from leasing land

The more complicated calculation looks somewhat different. This is because King Charles III has other income than just the direct state grants. He has income from the Duchy of Lancaster. These are profits from the leasing of land and other property. The Duchy yields around £20 million a year. The royal family also owns the Duchy of Cornwall, which also generates profits of a similar amount that are distributed to Prince William. A special feature for the King: he does not have to pay any taxes, i.e. neither income tax nor capital gains tax or even inheritance tax. Since 1993, however, the Queen has paid taxes on a voluntary basis.

The ‘Republic’ organisation, which campaigns for an end to the monarchy and for an elected head of state, presents a completely different account. In 2017, the pressure group presented a report in which the authors came to the conclusion that the royal family costs taxpayers £345 million (393 million euros) per year. The calculation also includes the costs of securing the royals and the properties. It also includes the costs of buildings that are owned by the state but used by the royal family, for example.

Monarchs.

Estimated assets of two billion euros

In recent weeks, there has been widespread reporting on the King's wealth. The Guardian newspaper has worked with a team of reporters and wealth specialists to calculate how much Charles III owns. According to the report, the king has 1.8 billion pounds (2.05 billion euros). He owns a fleet of 23 cars, numerous works of art, very valuable jewellery, horses and shares in companies. The family owns Balmoral Castle in Scotland as well as the seat in Sandringham and the Duchy of Lancaster. There are no official figures. The palace did not comment on the estimates, but called the figures ‘a creative mix of speculation, assumptions and inaccuracy’.

In the debate about the king's finances and the costs of the monarchy, one thing stands out above all else: There is a lack of transparency

In the 2024 financial year, which ended on 31 March of that year, the British royal family received state remuneration of around £86.3 million. This means that state remuneration remained constant compared to the previous year.

All the king's wealth

Charles III inherits a considerable fortune from his mother - tax-free. The royal family owns entire duchies, lucrative roads and dilapidated palaces.

The operating costs for the British monarchy are primarily met by the Crown Estate, the management company for the royal estates. These are the properties that belong to the monarchy as an institution and not to the monarch personally - and which make a tidy profit.

These include, for example, estates and properties such as the entire high-priced Regent Street in the heart of London, but also offshore wind farms off the coast, collections of paintings and shopping centres. The total value of the Estate's assets is estimated at more than 15 billion pounds, the equivalent of more than 17 billion euros.

More money for a dilapidated palace

Normally, 15 per cent of Crown Estate profits go to the monarch, which is usually the equivalent of around 50 million euros a year. This is used to finance staff, travel and palace maintenance - as well as facilities that the monarch supports. This 15 per cent rate was increased to 25 per cent in 2017 - which currently amounts to almost 100 million euros. A hefty, temporary supplement to renovate Buckingham Palace.

If the British government's report on the state of the palace is to be believed, the palace is now a shambles: in some of the 775 rooms, buckets are reportedly already being used to catch the drips from the ceiling. For 60 years, too little has been done in terms of maintenance, and now the craftsmen have to get to work, for ten years and around 430 million euros - financed by the Crown Estate. The electrics are outdated, the heating urgently needs to be replaced, as does the pipework, otherwise there is a serious risk of fire and water, says the government.

King Charles III owns a total of 92 properties - and they are extremely valuable

How much is too much?

According to Forbes, King Charles III's property portfolio now consists of 7 palaces, 10 castles, 12 houses, 56 holiday homes and 14 ancient ruins - which also have a high value. However, as the media rightly emphasise, he does not own the properties directly. They belong to the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall and are administered by the Crown. However, four estates are owned by two trusts that the Regent established when he was still Prince. Two of these estates are in Rome, the others in the United Kingdom.

One might be forgiven for questioning the collective intelligence of a people who would choose to engage in such an activity.

mod

Today marks the second anniversary of the death of Queen Elizabeth II -September 8th 2024.

Two years ago (on September 8th 2022), The late Queen died around 3pm at Balmoral Castle in Scotland.

You are incredibly missed. Thank you for everything Ma'am!

[chloelovesu]

[choccy-milky]

(ominis is already on his family's plan but he's there to annoy seb anyway)

[cuddlytogas]

So I accidentally almost got into an argument on Twitter, and now I'm thinking about bad historical costuming tropes. Specifically, Action Hero Leather Pants.

See, I was light-heartedly pointing out the inaccuracies of the costumes in Black Sails, and someone came out of the woodwork to defend the show. The misunderstanding was that they thought I was dismissing the show just for its costumes, which I wasn't - I was simply pointing out that it can't entirely care about material history (meaning specifically physical objects/culture) if it treats its clothes like that.

But this person was slightly offended on behalf of their show - especially, quote, "And from a fan of OFMD, no less!" Which got me thinking - it's true! I can abide a lot more historical costuming inaccuracy from Our Flag than I can Black Sails or Vikings. And I don't think it's just because one has my blorbos in it. But really, when it comes down to it...

What is the difference between this and this?

Here's the thing. Leather pants in period dramas isn't new. You've got your Vikings, Tudors, Outlander, Pirates of the Caribbean, Once Upon a Time, Will, The Musketeers, even Shakespeare in Love - they love to shove people in leather and call it a day. But where does this come from?

Obviously we have the modern connotations. Modern leather clothes developed in a few subcultures: cowboys drew on Native American clothing. (Allegedly. This is a little beyond my purview, I haven't seen any solid evidence, and it sounds like the kind of fact that people repeat a lot but is based on an assumption. I wouldn't know, though.) Leather was used in some WWI and II uniforms.

But the big boom came in the mid-C20th in motorcycle, punk/goth, and gay subcultures, all intertwined with each other and the above. Motorcyclists wear leather as practical protective gear, and it gets picked up by rock and punk artists as a symbol of counterculture, and transferred to movie designs. It gets wrapped up in gay and kink communities, with even more countercultural and taboo meanings. By the late C20th, leather has entered mainstream fashion, but it still carries those references to goths, punks, BDSM, and motorbike gangs, to James Dean, Marlon Brando, and Mick Jagger. This is whence we get our Spikes and Dave Listers in 1980s/90s media, bad boys and working-class punks.

And some of the above "historical" design choices clearly build on these meanings. William Shakespeare is dressed in a black leather doublet to evoke the swaggering bad boy artist heartthrob, probably down on his luck. So is Kit Marlowe.

But the associations get a little fuzzier after that. Hook, with his eyeliner and jewellery, sure. King Henry, yeah, I see it. It's hideously ahistorical, but sure. But what about Jamie and Will and Ragnar, in their browns and shabby, battle-ready chic? Well, here we get the other strain of Bad Period Drama Leather.

See, designers like to point to history, but it's just not true. Leather armour, especially in the western/European world, is very, very rare, and not just because it decays faster than metal. (Yes, even in ancient Greece/Rome, despite many articles claiming that as the start of the leather armour trend!) It simply wasn't used a lot, because it's frankly useless at defending the body compared to metal. Leather was used as a backing for some splint armour pieces, and for belts, sheathes, and buckles, but it simply wasn't worn like the costumes above. It's heavy, uncomfortable, and hard to repair - it's simply not practical for a garment when you have perfectly comfortable, insulating, and widely available linen, wool, and cotton!

As far as I can see, the real influence on leather in period dramas is fantasy. Fantasy media has proliferated the idea of leather armour as the lightweight choice for rangers, elves, and rogues, a natural, quiet, flexible material, less flashy or restrictive than metal. And it is cheaper for a costume department to make, and easier for an actor to wear on set. It's in Dungeons and Dragons and Lord of the Rings, King Arthur, Runescape, and World of Warcraft.

And I think this is how we get to characters like Ragnar and Vane. This idea of leather as practical gear and light armour, it's fantasy, but it has this lineage, behind which sits cowboy chaps and bomber/flight jackets. It's usually brown compared to the punk bad boy's black, less shiny, and more often piecemeal or decorated. In fact, there's a great distinction between the two Period Leather Modes within the same piece of media: Robin Hood (2006)! Compare the brooding, fascist-coded villain Guy of Gisborne with the shabby, bow-wielding, forest-dwelling Robin:

So, back to the original question: What's the difference between Charles Vane in Black Sails, and Edward Teach in Our Flag Means Death?

Simply put, it's intention. There is nothing intentional about Vane's leather in Black Sails. It's not the only leather in the show, and it only says what all shabby period leather says, relying on the same tropes as fantasy armour: he's a bad boy and a fighter in workaday leather, poor, flexible, and practical. None of these connotations are based in reality or history, and they've been done countless times before. It's boring design, neither historically accurate nor particularly creative, but much the same as all the other shabby chic fighters on our screens. He has a broad lineage in Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Caribbean and such, but that's it.

In Our Flag, however, the lineage is much, much more intentional. Ed is a direct homage to Mad Max, the costuming in which is both practical (Max is an ex-cop and road warrior), and draws on punk and kink designs to evoke a counterculture gone mad to the point of social breakdown, exploiting the thrill of the taboo to frighten and titillate the audience.

In particular, Ed is styled after Max in the second movie, having lost his family, been badly injured, and watched the world turn into an apocalypse. He's a broken man, withdrawn, violent, and deliberately cutting himself off from others to avoid getting hurt again. The plot of Mad Max 2 is him learning to open up and help others, making himself vulnerable to more loss, but more human in the process.

This ties directly into the themes of Our Flag - it's a deliberate intertext. Ed's emotional journey is also one from isolation and pain to vulnerability, community, and love. Mad Max (intentionally and unintentionally) explores themes of masculinity, violence, and power, while Max has become simplified in the popular imagination as a stoic, badass action hero rather than the more complex character he is, struggling with loss and humanity. Similarly, Our Flag explores masculinity, both textually (Stede is trying to build a less abusive pirate culture) and metatextually (the show champions complex, banal, and tender masculinities, especially when we're used to only seeing pirates in either gritty action movies or childish comedies).

Our Flag also draws on the specific countercultures of motorcycles, rockers, and gay/BDSM culture in its design and themes. Naturally, in such a queer show, one can't help but make the connection between leather pirates and leather daddies, and the design certainly nods at this, with its vests and studs. I always think about this guy, with his flat cap so reminiscient of gay leather fashions.

More overtly, though, Blackbeard and his crew are styled as both violent gangsters and countercultural rockstars. They rove the seas like a bikie gang, free and violent, and are seen as icons, bad boys and celebrities. Other pirates revere Blackbeard and wish they could be on his crew, while civilians are awed by his reputation, desperate for juicy, gory details.

This isn't all of why I like the costuming in Our Flag Means Death (especially season 1). Stede's outfits are by no means accurate, but they're a lot more accurate than most pirate media, and they're bright and colourful, with accurate and delightful silks, lace, velvets, and brocades, and lovely, puffy skirts on his jackets. Many of the Revenge crew wear recognisable sailor's trousers, and practical but bright, varied gear that easily conveys personality and flair. There is a surprising dedication to little details, like changing Ed's trousers to fall-fronts for a historical feel, Izzy's puffy sleeves, the handmade fringe on Lucius's red jacket, or the increasing absurdity of navy uniform cuffs between Nigel and Chauncey.

A really big one is the fact that they don't shy away from historical footwear! In almost every example above, we see the period drama's obsession with putting men in skinny jeans and bucket-top boots, but not only does Stede wear his little red-heeled shoes with stockings, but most of his crew, and the ordinary people of Barbados, wear low boots or pumps, and even rough, masculine characters like Pete wear knee breeches and bright colours. It's inaccurate, but at least it's a new kind of inaccuracy, that builds much more on actual historical fashions, and eschews the shortcuts of other, grittier period dramas in favour of colour and personality.

But also. At least it fucking says something with its leather.

[kandyzee]

Fiona was a top athlete, breaking records in track but had to drop out of high school.

Lip was a genius, always told he was gonna be the one to make it but dropped out of college.

Ian was in ROTC for years and trying to get into West Point but had any chance of enlisting ruined.

The 3 eldest gallagher siblings are gifted kids/ dedicated to a goal, but never live up to it, and it kills me every time.

[bixels]

The idea that uni protesters are "elitist ivy-league rich kids larping as revolutionaries" on Twitter and Reddit and even here is so fucking funny to me if you actually know anything about the student bodies at these unis. Take it from someone who's going to one of the biggest private unis in the US, 80% of the peers I know are either from the suburbs or an apartment somewhere in America, children of immigrants, or here on a student visa. I've heard about one-percenter students, but I've never met one in person. Like, don't get me wrong, the institution as a whole is still very privileged and white. I've talked with friends and classmates about feeling weird or dissonant being here and coming from such a different background. But in my art program, I see BIPOC, disabled, queer, lower-income students and faculty trying to deconstruct and tear that down and make space every day. So to take a cursory glance at a crowd of student protesters in coalitions that are led by BIPOC & 1st/2nd-gen immigrant students and HQ'd in ethnic housings and student organizations and say, "ah. children of the elite." Get real.

[lovelyymeq]

[icewindandboringhorror]

On average, what is the total MONTHLY amount that you spend on dining out*?

*(This doesn't only count going out to restaurants, but also stuff like picking up fast food to bring home, getting a coffee on the way to work, getting a premade sandwich from a grocery store deli during lunch, buying a quick snack from a convenience store or food cart whilst walking somewhere, ordering a pizza or any other food to be delivered to your home, etc.)

*(If you often dine out in groups/as a household: calculate and divide the costs so that you get a Per Person average. This is for YOU individually, NOT the total household/group costs)

(I'm sure polls similar to this have been made before (very common topic), I just haven't personally seen one that I can remember, so, I was curious to do my own! I was discussing this with a group of people today and it was very interesting to see how widely the number varied between individuals. :0c )

(Reblog for bigger sample size if you can, and feel free to explain your answer in tags if there's anything extra to add!)

[notmoreflippingelves]

Actually going insane over the implications of Jason asking Dick to be the Robin to his Batman in Battle for the Cowl.

Like I initially took it at the purely surface-level of Jason wanting a partner in the general sense. Which made sense, it's a huge responsibility and a lonely one so an assistant/sidekick/partner seems a no-brainer if you can get one.

But then I really thought about it, because Jason is not asking Dick to be his partner in the general sense; he's not even asking Dick to be his Nightwing. He's asking Dick to be his Robin.

And they both know exactly what Jason means: "Be the light to my darkness. Be the smile to my scowl. Be the hope to my fear. "

He's saying "Be 'Robin'; be the embodiment of Love and Justice and Goodness. Be the exceptional person that you have always been. Be the slightly-less exceptional person that I was when I wore your colors. Be the person that I was in the process of becoming and might have been (or might still be), if only Joker hadn't clipped my wings."

He's saying "I am prepared to become vengeance, become the Night. And I will go further than Bruce ever dared to, because it is what is needed. I will be the necessary evil. But you don't have to be. If Batman is Gotham's curse, Robin has always been its blessing. I will be the brutal punishment to our world, and I am asking you to be its incandescent gift."

He's saying, "Be for me, what we were for Him. Be my anchor, my comfort, my hope. Remind me what it's all for, why it's all worth it. And remind yourself as well."

He's saying "Be 'Robin' again--for both of our sakes."

[mothskinnedman]

Take care!! Remember that this is only for self defense, DO NOT use it irresponsibly.

Protect yourself and those you love!

[starry-bi-sky]

*points at bruce and danny in 'late at night when the nightingale sings'* THESE TWO MFERS MEAN SO MUCH TO MEEEE

no thoughts head empty just these two socially inept fools finding family in one another. like yes you go you funky little death omens stole that one from a comment on the fic, so if you see this you know who you are, discover that family isn't only tied in blood.

bUT onto less mushy stuff: these two being shenaniganizers; tomfools. Bruce realized that Danny didn't actually know he was Bruce Wayne and instead of going "oh actually im bruce wayne" he went; "hrm... how long can i keep this going until he realizes...."

like. i think they deserve to be the sillies. just utter goobers the both of them. like, danny makes the wittiest side comments, dry quips, under his breath towards Bruce while they're out in public (Danny covering his face with a face mask) and Bruce is trying not to laugh. Meanwhile if Bruce makes one sly comment about someone to Danny, Danny's gonna collapse with laughter.

Bruce plays straightman in most of their bits, he has the best fucking poker face. But also I firmly believe he does actually enjoy Danny's puns. Look me in the eyes- look me in the eyes. Try and tell me that a man that willingly agrees to call a car "the batmobile" even after his eight year old ward grows up (thus negating the need to go along with his antics) doesn't enjoy a good, well-placed pun. Look me in the eyes and try to tell me that. That's right you can't.

He's gonna spit out a well-placed pun in the driest, most boring Batman Voice Ever one day while he's getting ready for patrol, and Danny's gonna fucking die of laughter. He's gonna lose his mind. Bruce is going to have a half-dead sickly teenager laughing his lungs out in the chair. That's a new core memory right there, every time Danny thinks about that he's gonna start giggling.

just!!! these two making each other laugh! That's so important to me. So so much. I nEED Danny to get Bruce to smile and laugh and I need Bruce to make Danny do the same. Danny's all snark and sass and Bruce is all deadpan and dry quips. Do you all see my vision.

[jc-writes-bullshit]

@ elon musk why can’t you do something that’s actually useful to society like giving Netflix a big chunk of money to renew Lockwood and Co.???

[chloelovesu]

[barbietrice]

Blair Waldorf 💄🥂

[vinceaddams]

a fun thing you can do when you're a grownup is buy a bunch of ingredients and make 6 litres of spaghetti sauce in a big pot and divide it up into a bunch of containers and put it in the freezer!

[444prilsbae]