https://therealdeal.com/new-yo...lionaires-row-condo/

It was revealed after Elizabeth II's death she owned over 20 NYC properties.

It's not my country but if it were I would want the monarchy to end with the death of Charles III.

I don't know if this is surprising in light of my long time interested in the institution, it's history, the Kingdom's history, and my interest in the person of Diana Spencer.

But there it is.

This institution isn't remotely consistent with my politics.

And the actual UK government is a horror show today even after the elections. I'd have them put their house in order (almost certainly impossible) and not hide behind an ugly institution with a guilded facade (almost certainly possible at least).

I'm in a roll so I'll note again the marriage of Charles III and Camilla was illegal and illegitimate. It broke a few rule of Parliament iirc. This is why the head of the official church could only be married in a civil ceremony.

You could be polite and say it will have an asterisk next to it in history. Or not.

The wealth of real estate he had available to him is obscene including a grand Scottish house he bought from the original family who were selling it after seven generations with original furniture in situ. He bought it through the formation of a charitable trust but uses it as another private residence.

Enough.

Now that you've expressed your disgust, how about the facts ...

Property was bought by the Canadian Government

Of course, Elizabeth II didn't stay in any of the twenty NY apartments. She only visited the US twice in my lifetime. Of course, Charles III isn't going to spend a single night in this one. This is what I meant by my use of the word-- "facade."


I remain

disgusted.

Now read the article. This was NOT bought by Charles III. It was bought by the Canadian government for the use of its consular officials. It has nothing to do with the British royal family. What do you not understand about that? You see what you want to see, not what is. You didn't even bother to read the line in my post that says,

"Property was bought by the Canadian Government."

Of course it was and I shouldn't have implied otherwise in my OP, but your knee jerk tendency to get frustrated and make personal attacks would be unbecoming of any member of this forum, and coming from a person with your level of education and professional achievement fails to rise to the level of being pathetic.

No, the queen did not own properties all over NYC. Did you read?

That article you posted is Bull Crap! It even says,

"His majesty the King in right of Canada ."

And the same thing applies to the queen's supposed properties.

The expensive property across from the UN...

quote:

A palace spokesman flatly denied that the condo had been bought by King Charles, and pointed to a similar rumor involving a different property. He may have been referring to the purchase in 2015 of a 2,600-square-foot condominium directly across from the United Nations for $7.9 million.

That deed was issued to “Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Zealand,” sparking speculation that Queen Elizabeth II had bought the unit at 50 United Nations Plaza. (She hadn’t.)

You don't like when people probe the garbage that you post that forms the basis of your "opinions."

Too bad. All that stuff about deed issued to “Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Zealand" (or other nations) refers to properties owned by Commonwealth nations, not the royal family. These are the facts.

You're not paying attention to my written words. If you were, you'd put down your attitude and stop repeating yourself.

You claim I confuse fact and opinion. Let's compare notes.

You have shown yourself to be ignorant and out of your depth regarding Palestine, Israel, international law, humans rights, and a genocide being live streamed to the whole world. And you accuse me of seey what I want to see? Too funny.

I don't care what you think. You violate the letter and principle of the forum rules on a routine basis. I didn't appreciate your stalkerish behavior.

You're about one step from being put on my Ignore list.

I probably should have done it a long time ago.

"Of course it was and I shouldn't have implied otherwise in my OP,..."

Do you read?

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:
"Of course it was and I shouldn't have implied otherwise in my OP,..."

Given the title of the thread (Charles buys an apartment in Steinway Hall section of billionaire's row), wasn't that the premise of the thread?

Maybe, since that is incorrect, the title of the thread should be changed. Or, the thread could be deleted.

That would seem to make the most sense. Just a suggestion, of course.

I repeated the spin of the article without processing it first.

BTW, do you think I don't know this apartment was for "Canada"? Do you think I don't know Diana was the only member of the family who visited NY?

I admitted my error.

You don't need to rub it in for your friend's sake, Quirt. You don't comment on his ranting or on his false claim I consistently see what I want to see and can not and do not give logical support for my opinions.

You don't comment when on the contrary I gave a good example of him doing what he accuses me of doing.

I respect you and would never consider putting you on Ignore (God knows why) but you certainly can be biased sometimes.

I never said anything about you, or PD, or anyone else. I merely commented that the title of the thread contains an incorrect fact.

In response, you accuse me of rubbing it in for PD's sake and of being biased sometimes.

And yeah, I'm not saying anything to anyone else. My original post in this thread was simply to comment on the facts of the title of the thread, and now I'm pointing out that you decided to talk about me, when I didn't say anything about you.

To quote another old police procedural, just the facts.

(Lol.)

"Canadian government buys NY luxury apartment" would be fine with me if you're offering to change it.

I don't think the OP can change a thread title after a second post had been made

At least it used to work that way.

I wasn't offering to change it. My understanding is that, if you edit your first post, you, as the original author, can change the title. I've been able to do so, anyway, and my recollection is that more than one person has done so (i.e., adding "now with pictures" or "eta" something). But, perhaps I am wrong about that.

I wonder what the article means by the “landmarked Steinway Hall portion.” Sounds to me like the posh, classic street-level showroom. I thought it was all demolished when the tower went up.

I visited several times, usually making my way past the rotunda to the drab piano selection rooms below. It would be nice to think they preserved that elegant room.