are all banks owned and copyrighted by the british royal family?? also, i heard that all taxes in america go to the british royal family as well… i mean, taxes were started to pay back war debts, right? so maybe there is some truth… i dunno! that’s why i’m asking you guys!
No. What’s more, banks are not copyrighted by anybody, since they aren’t literature, music or art.
No. Though a lot of American taxes do go to bond-holders in China.
Sort of. However, in the Last Big War (the one held between 1939 and 1945), the British were borrowing from the US, so British tax payers may still be paying them off to the US.
The British royal family, while quite wealthy, does not own most banks.
Taxes are collected by the United States government and are used to pay for government spending in this country. They are not handed over to the British government or the royal family. If they were, how would the US pay for all the things it’s buying?
Taxes (specifically income tax) was started to pay for wartime expenses (during World War I although I think there may have been some during the Civil War as well). But not really war debts as such. The United States doesn’t owe any war debts, so there’s none to pay off with taxes.
And while you didn’t ask, I’d like to assure you that Queen Elizabeth is not the head of the world cocaine trade nor is she a giant lizard in disguise.
No to all.
Most banks are corporations, with publically-traded stock. You, personally, can buy shares in them, if you have the inclination & the dough-re-me.
The House Of Windsor, a.k.a. The British Royal Family, is a mostly symbolic institution, with no or little power.
There is this much truth in your ponderings, though: they are rich, & likely own a great deal of stock in several banking corporations.
Go HERE for Her Majesty’s Official Website (she is rumored to be a Websurfer…you might have met her online! ).
Here’s a copy of the 2005 Federal Budget. This is where taxes go:
And here’s a good website from the House Budget Committee explaining how federal budgets work:
Welcome to the boards!
Who told you the above? :eek:
And what else did they tell you?
I’m not sure about the lizard part. Have you ever seen her and Godzilla in the same room?
I’m just asking.
I’ve seen them in the same room.
Who knew Buckingham Palace had a Grand Hall Of Jamaican Limbo Dancing?
Who knew Liz was that flexible, at her age?
About as likely that her son (the Heir to both the throne and the Head of the Church of England) should have committed adultery before during and after his marriage. Then married said mistress. :rolleyes:
What, it would have been more moral if he hadn’t married his mistress?
And, of course, we all know that royals never had mistresses. :rolleyes:
To confirm Giles’s point, the UK government still owes the US government war debt from WWII (although this is probably going to be finally paid off by the end of next year).
Is it all banks, or just the British ones?
Banks in the UK are registered with and regulated by government bodies and some of the older ones have ‘royal’ charters, but they are no more owned by the Royal Family (or the government) than national banks in the US chartered by the federal government are owned by the Bushes.
He didn’t commit adultery before his marriage. He committed fornication.
Anyway, my guess is that vast majority, if not the entirety of the heirs, monarchs, and heads of the Church of England have done at least what Charles has done if not more.
I’m not aware of any banks chartered by the federal government, except the Federal Reserve System and the defunct central banks of the 19th century.
Camilla was married. Therefore it was adultery.
You’re accusing a lot of people there!
Are you seriously suggesting that Charles can behave like a mediaeval Monarch (Henry VIII comes to mind)?
Don’t you expect him to be against slavery, in favour of women having the vote etc. Times and morals have moved on.
Thus, Camilla committed adultery. Charles didn’t.
Mediaeval? Edward VIII’s mistresses are publicly known. Are you saying that it’s unfair to assume that the intervening monarchs between him and Prince Charles have not been squeaky clean in their sexual behaviour? Charles had to marry a teen-ager to find a virgin.
Times and morals have moved on? Yeah, pre-marital and extra-marital sex has become more and more socially accepted at all levels of society. Fewer and frewer people are socially or legally punished for their sexual activities. Why impose an outdated moral regime on the royal family when everyone else around them can do whatever the hell they want? Smacks of hypocrisy and head-in-the-sandism to me.
**glee ** is correct. Both Camilla and Charles committed adultery. The Catholic Encyclopaedia defines adultery as “carnal connection between a married person and one unmarried, or between a married person and the spouse of another. It is seen to differ from fornication in that it supposes the marriage of one or both of the agents”.
Basically the key distinction between fornication and adultery is whether the man and woman would otherwise be free to marry each other. If they’re both unmarried and having sex with each other, then obviously they **could ** get married - so it’s fornication. But if they’re having sex with one another and either one or both of them is married to someone else, then they **can’t ** get married to each other - that’s adultery.
I’m pretty sure the head-of-the-Church-of-England-to-be doesn’t give two hoots what the Catholic Encyclopaedia says
All national banks are chartered by the federal government (specifically by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The charters are issued on behalf of private investors, of course, but the party doing the chartering is the government.
Paid off? Wooo! No doubt our income tax will plummet. Surely?
I won’t hold my breath.
As stated above the last payment will be made next year: The loan was originally £1 billion but reached £50 billion due to interest charges.