Discussion:
Queen of Bermuda holds hundreds of million outside the island.
Add Reply
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-06 10:34:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Eyebrows have been raised that sovereign of Bermuda has been keeping most of her money on international markets in an offshore Island (Great Britain - where she is also Queen) rather than in Bermuda.

Numerous politicians have condemn this as immoral and unethical, however the head of the government there has loyally defended HM and stated everything is above board.
JNugent
2017-11-07 01:56:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Eyebrows have been raised that sovereign of Bermuda has been keeping most of her money on international markets in an offshore Island (Great Britain - where she is also Queen) rather than in Bermuda.
Numerous politicians have condemn this as immoral and unethical, however the head of the government there has loyally defended HM and stated everything is above board.
Exctly.

I made a very similar point elsewhere.
BurfordTJustice
2017-11-07 12:48:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
You don't wear Jealous very well.



"R. Mark Clayton" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c82ac0e7-dfa9-43b4-b608-***@googlegroups.com...
: Eyebrows have been raised that sovereign of Bermuda has been keeping most
of her money on international markets in an offshore Island (Great Britain -
where she is also Queen) rather than in Bermuda.
:
: Numerous politicians have condemn this as immoral and unethical, however
the head of the government there has loyally defended HM and stated
everything is above board.
:
JNugent
2017-11-08 00:26:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BurfordTJustice
You don't wear Jealous very well.
: Eyebrows have been raised that sovereign of Bermuda has been keeping most
of her money on international markets in an offshore Island (Great Britain -
where she is also Queen) rather than in Bermuda.
: Numerous politicians have condemn this as immoral and unethical, however
the head of the government there has loyally defended HM and stated
everything is above board.
That went well above your head, then?
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-08 11:32:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by BurfordTJustice
You don't wear Jealous very well.
: Eyebrows have been raised that sovereign of Bermuda has been keeping most
of her money on international markets in an offshore Island (Great Britain -
where she is also Queen) rather than in Bermuda.
: Numerous politicians have condemn this as immoral and unethical, however
the head of the government there has loyally defended HM and stated
everything is above board.
That went well above your head, then?
Bermuda is her country too.
JNugent
2017-11-09 17:23:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by BurfordTJustice
You don't wear Jealous very well.
: Eyebrows have been raised that sovereign of Bermuda has been keeping most
of her money on international markets in an offshore Island (Great Britain -
where she is also Queen) rather than in Bermuda.
: Numerous politicians have condemn this as immoral and unethical, however
the head of the government there has loyally defended HM and stated
everything is above board.
That went well above your head, then?
Bermuda is her country too.
Quite so.

One might even hope that Her Majesty has overseas investments in every
territory of which she is head of state.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-09 18:07:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by BurfordTJustice
You don't wear Jealous very well.
: Eyebrows have been raised that sovereign of Bermuda has been keeping most
of her money on international markets in an offshore Island (Great Britain -
where she is also Queen) rather than in Bermuda.
: Numerous politicians have condemn this as immoral and unethical, however
the head of the government there has loyally defended HM and stated
everything is above board.
That went well above your head, then?
Bermuda is her country too.
Quite so.
One might even hope that Her Majesty has overseas investments in every
territory of which she is head of state.
Only the ones governed by the crown. OZ, Canada, NZ are independent, but keep HM as constitutional head of state.
JNugent
2017-11-10 02:41:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by BurfordTJustice
You don't wear Jealous very well.
: Eyebrows have been raised that sovereign of Bermuda has been keeping most
of her money on international markets in an offshore Island (Great Britain -
where she is also Queen) rather than in Bermuda.
: Numerous politicians have condemn this as immoral and unethical, however
the head of the government there has loyally defended HM and stated
everything is above board.
That went well above your head, then?
Bermuda is her country too.
Quite so.
One might even hope that Her Majesty has overseas investments in every
territory of which she is head of state.
Only the ones governed by the crown. OZ, Canada, NZ are independent, but keep HM as constitutional head of state.
The Monarch is the constitutional head of state here too.

Why shouldn't she have personal investments in any and every country in
the Commonwealth, except (obviously) for the ones which are, bizarrely,
republics?
Handsome Jack
2017-11-10 08:35:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
The Monarch is the constitutional head of state here too.
Why shouldn't she have personal investments in any and every country in
the Commonwealth, except (obviously) for the ones which are, bizarrely,
republics?
Why shouldn't anybody have investments anywhere they choose? Certainly
HMRC's own view is that they can.
--
Jack
JNugent
2017-11-10 09:28:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by JNugent
The Monarch is the constitutional head of state here too.
Why shouldn't she have personal investments in any and every country
in the Commonwealth, except (obviously) for the ones which are,
bizarrely, republics?
Why shouldn't anybody have investments anywhere they choose? Certainly
HMRC's own view is that they can.
My point was that notwithstanding the usual socialist envy-driven and
dishonest garbage, Bermuda and similar places are not "foreign" to the
Monarch.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-10 09:59:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by JNugent
The Monarch is the constitutional head of state here too.
Why shouldn't she have personal investments in any and every country
in the Commonwealth, except (obviously) for the ones which are,
bizarrely, republics?
Why shouldn't anybody have investments anywhere they choose? Certainly
HMRC's own view is that they can.
My point was that notwithstanding the usual socialist envy-driven and
dishonest garbage, Bermuda and similar places are not "foreign" to the
Monarch.
Exactly!
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-10 09:58:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by BurfordTJustice
You don't wear Jealous very well.
: Eyebrows have been raised that sovereign of Bermuda has been keeping most
of her money on international markets in an offshore Island (Great Britain -
where she is also Queen) rather than in Bermuda.
: Numerous politicians have condemn this as immoral and unethical, however
the head of the government there has loyally defended HM and stated
everything is above board.
That went well above your head, then?
Bermuda is her country too.
Quite so.
One might even hope that Her Majesty has overseas investments in every
territory of which she is head of state.
Only the ones governed by the crown. OZ, Canada, NZ are independent, but keep HM as constitutional head of state.
The Monarch is the constitutional head of state here too.
Why shouldn't she have personal investments in any and every country in
the Commonwealth, except (obviously) for the ones which are, bizarrely,
republics?
No reason, but these would be outside her realm. British Overseas Territories (formerly Empire) are all hers, so how can one criticise her (as opposed to say Gary Linaker) for investing in her own lands?
tim...
2017-11-10 10:26:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by BurfordTJustice
You don't wear Jealous very well.
: Eyebrows have been raised that sovereign of Bermuda has been keeping most
of her money on international markets in an offshore Island (Great Britain -
where she is also Queen) rather than in Bermuda.
: Numerous politicians have condemn this as immoral and unethical, however
the head of the government there has loyally defended HM and stated
everything is above board.
That went well above your head, then?
Bermuda is her country too.
Quite so.
One might even hope that Her Majesty has overseas investments in every
territory of which she is head of state.
Only the ones governed by the crown. OZ, Canada, NZ are independent,
but keep HM as constitutional head of state.
The Monarch is the constitutional head of state here too.
Why shouldn't she have personal investments in any and every country in
the Commonwealth, except (obviously) for the ones which are, bizarrely,
republics?
No reason, but these would be outside her realm. British Overseas
Territories (formerly Empire) are all hers, so how can one criticise her
(as opposed to say Gary Linaker) for investing in her own lands?
If your only investment in a foreign land is the owing of a (genuine)
holiday home, I see no reason that that can be criticized either, regardless
of any historic links you may, or may not, have to the country.

The reasonableness of investing in a holiday home on a (random) Caribbean
island is no different to having one in Bulgaria.

tim
tim...
2017-11-10 10:20:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by BurfordTJustice
You don't wear Jealous very well.
: Eyebrows have been raised that sovereign of Bermuda has been keeping most
of her money on international markets in an offshore Island (Great Britain -
where she is also Queen) rather than in Bermuda.
: Numerous politicians have condemn this as immoral and unethical, however
the head of the government there has loyally defended HM and stated
everything is above board.
That went well above your head, then?
Bermuda is her country too.
Quite so.
One might even hope that Her Majesty has overseas investments in every
territory of which she is head of state.
Only the ones governed by the crown. OZ, Canada, NZ are independent, but
keep HM as constitutional head of state.
The Monarch is the constitutional head of state here too.
Why shouldn't she have personal investments in any and every country in
the Commonwealth, except (obviously) for the ones which are, bizarrely,
republics?
why is it bizarre that some chose to be republics?

tim
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-10 10:37:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by BurfordTJustice
You don't wear Jealous very well.
: Eyebrows have been raised that sovereign of Bermuda has been keeping most
of her money on international markets in an offshore Island (Great Britain -
where she is also Queen) rather than in Bermuda.
: Numerous politicians have condemn this as immoral and unethical, however
the head of the government there has loyally defended HM and stated
everything is above board.
That went well above your head, then?
Bermuda is her country too.
Quite so.
One might even hope that Her Majesty has overseas investments in every
territory of which she is head of state.
Only the ones governed by the crown. OZ, Canada, NZ are independent, but
keep HM as constitutional head of state.
The Monarch is the constitutional head of state here too.
Why shouldn't she have personal investments in any and every country in
the Commonwealth, except (obviously) for the ones which are, bizarrely,
republics?
why is it bizarre that some chose to be republics?
tim
bizarre a bit strong, but the main reason not to is political stability - the UK has not had extra constitutional change since 1688 nor violent political change since the end of the civil war (~1649).
JNugent
2017-11-10 10:40:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by BurfordTJustice
You don't wear Jealous very well.
: Eyebrows have been raised that sovereign of Bermuda has been keeping most
of her money on international markets in an offshore Island (Great Britain -
where she is also Queen) rather than in Bermuda.
: Numerous politicians have condemn this as immoral and
unethical, however
the head of the government there has loyally defended HM and stated
everything is above board.
That went well above your head, then?
Bermuda is her country too.
Quite so.
One might even hope that Her Majesty has overseas investments in every
territory of which she is head of state.
Only the ones governed by the crown.  OZ, Canada, NZ are independent,
but keep HM as constitutional head of state.
The Monarch is the constitutional head of state here too.
Why shouldn't she have personal investments in any and every country
in the Commonwealth, except (obviously) for the ones which are,
bizarrely, republics?
why is it bizarre that some chose to be republics?
It isn't.

It is bizarre that they are allowed to be part of the Commonwealth *as*
republics.
tim...
2017-11-10 12:29:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by tim...
why is it bizarre that some chose to be republics?
It isn't.
It is bizarre that they are allowed to be part of the Commonwealth *as*
republics.
well that was because they wanted to be republics and "we" wanted them to
remain in the commonwealth

And "we" blinked first - and I can't see what that's fundamentally a bad
thing

especially since the commonwealth started to allow in counties that weren't
ever part of the "empire"
JNugent
2017-11-10 13:52:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by JNugent
Post by tim...
why is it bizarre that some chose to be republics?
It isn't.
It is bizarre that they are allowed to be part of the Commonwealth
*as* republics.
well that was because they wanted to be republics and "we" wanted them
to remain in the commonwealth
Did "we"?
Post by tim...
And "we" blinked first - and I can't see what that's fundamentally a bad
thing
especially since the commonwealth started to allow in counties that
weren't ever part of the "empire"
"Empire" is a word with a specific meaning. Not every British territory
was held imperially.
tim...
2017-11-10 15:52:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by tim...
Post by JNugent
Post by tim...
why is it bizarre that some chose to be republics?
It isn't.
It is bizarre that they are allowed to be part of the Commonwealth *as*
republics.
well that was because they wanted to be republics and "we" wanted them to
remain in the commonwealth
Did "we"?
FSVO "we", yes we did
Post by JNugent
Post by tim...
And "we" blinked first - and I can't see what that's fundamentally a bad
thing
especially since the commonwealth started to allow in counties that
weren't ever part of the "empire"
"Empire" is a word with a specific meaning. Not every British territory
was held imperially.
which is why I put it quotes

the countries concerned were not British in any way, they were part of
someone else's "empire!" until the time of independence

tim
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-10 16:45:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by JNugent
Post by tim...
Post by JNugent
Post by tim...
why is it bizarre that some chose to be republics?
It isn't.
It is bizarre that they are allowed to be part of the Commonwealth *as*
republics.
well that was because they wanted to be republics and "we" wanted them to
remain in the commonwealth
Did "we"?
FSVO "we", yes we did
Post by JNugent
Post by tim...
And "we" blinked first - and I can't see what that's fundamentally a bad
thing
especially since the commonwealth started to allow in counties that
weren't ever part of the "empire"
"Empire" is a word with a specific meaning. Not every British territory
was held imperially.
which is why I put it quotes
the countries concerned were not British in any way, they were part of
someone else's "empire!" until the time of independence
tim
Like Mozambique.
tim...
2017-11-10 17:08:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
Post by JNugent
Post by tim...
Post by JNugent
Post by tim...
why is it bizarre that some chose to be republics?
It isn't.
It is bizarre that they are allowed to be part of the Commonwealth *as*
republics.
well that was because they wanted to be republics and "we" wanted them to
remain in the commonwealth
Did "we"?
FSVO "we", yes we did
Post by JNugent
Post by tim...
And "we" blinked first - and I can't see what that's fundamentally a bad
thing
especially since the commonwealth started to allow in counties that
weren't ever part of the "empire"
"Empire" is a word with a specific meaning. Not every British territory
was held imperially.
which is why I put it quotes
the countries concerned were not British in any way, they were part of
someone else's "empire!" until the time of independence
tim
Like Mozambique.
correct

Loading...