Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
I actually quite like the royals. Unlike our other scroungers they actually contribute to our tourism economy(1) and are handy to have during trade missions(2).

When its his time Charlie should really continue sticking his name on premium priced shortbreads and give the crown to Wills.(3)

1. Or rather, the extremely large and fancy buildings they maintain at our expense and the treasures within their ancestors pinched off folk contribute to our tourism economy. You don't need a royal family to make tourist bucks from palaces; ask the French. Even being a fractional minority as they are, your average dole scrounger contributes more to the economy than Queeny and her brood of leeches - the money the taxpayer forks over to them doesn't get spent in local businesses, unless stores flogging diamond-encrusted ermine have popped up on local highstreets all over the country while I wasn't looking.

2. Those would be trade missions to other places with royalty and dictators they can shmooze, like those paragons of virtue in Saudi Arabia? I suppose we have to have something to distract them from beheading their people and stoning their women to death for being raped long enough to sign their contracts with BAE Systems...or, you know, we could just stop flogging weapons to dodgy regimes and revitalise our export economy using means that don't require medievalist patronage.

3. If Chuckles the Homeopathic Berk ever gets within range of taking the throne, I would seriously expect that republicans will shift from "Boo, slowly phase out the monarchy and replace them with an elected head of state!" to "Here, that Robespierre chappie had some good ideas eh. Davey, nip on the computer and google up plans for one of those guillotine things yeah?" fairly rapidly. Even people who like the monarchy surely have to admit that Prince Cretin would be a disaster.

Kings and Queens come and go. We've managed when they inconveniently drop dead before, I'm sure the world will be fine.

Charlie boy has been a walking advert for pro republicans for a long time.

Yodhrin I look at the amount we spend on the Windsors as being a good investment in maintaining some of our history. I think of them as part of the heritage triad alongside EH and The National Trust. Just my opinion though.

We could just drop Andrew and his spawn down an active Volcano though.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
..snip...

There is bit of oddity I find here, first is that an international economy will just shut down for the passing of a head of state? and that thousands of dollars will be spent replacing insiqnias and badges for police and even printing brand new coins?

Oddity? Hmmmmmmm

First off - don't Panic! We'll all get an extra "bank holiday". Nothing unusual here and, wow, we get at most a couple of extra days off. Which, most likely, will be spent down the pub toasting the queen/getting pissed/enjoying the time off (delete as appropriate or adopt a mix of all three). We've had one of these a few years ago for the Queen's Jubilee.

Insignias in the main will probably remain as they are. For example, UK post boxes bear the current reigning monarchs title when they were made. Quite a lot of them have E II R (Elizabeth II Regina) as she's been the longest serving. But there are plenty of post boxes with Edward VIII, Victoria, etc etc. Police badges won't be swapped overnight, there'll be a gradual change and the rest of the will probably be changed as and when needed. Again, there's still plenty of legacy insignia about the country.

As for currency, no rush here. Before we were decimalised in the 60's/70's, some of the currency in circulation was getting close to 100 years old. For example, you had various monarchs imprinted on the various pennies from the different reigns. When our Queen goes and Charlie steps in, any newly minted currency will bear his head and title. Old currency will continue to be valid unless they are withdrawn for any reason.

Also, it should be pointed out that Europe is Britains biggest market and most European countries already get more national holidays than us.

So it's not like us having an extra day off will cripple our economy or anything like that.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Necros wrote:
Why would William or Harry be next in line... what about Charles?

A lot of people think Charles should step aside, feeling he is too old. Which is a bit funny when they're not also asking the queen to step down

I think the idea behind that is so you don't have multiple Monarch's dying so close together.

Way back when the Monarchy was a little more integral to the country's wellbeing, a new monarch usually meant there was a period of economic and political turmoil, or even outright war if it was serious enough. So it is obviously in the best interest of everyone that all kings and queens be crowned young and die old, to give the longest stable period possible.

So by that logic, it would make more sense for a younger Royal to become the next ruler.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Necros wrote:
Why would William or Harry be next in line... what about Charles?

A lot of people think Charles should step aside, feeling he is too old. Which is a bit funny when they're not also asking the queen to step down

I think the idea behind that is so you don't have multiple Monarch's dying so close together.

Way back when the Monarchy was a little more integral to the country's wellbeing, a new monarch usually meant there was a period of economic and political turmoil, or even outright war if it was serious enough. So it is obviously in the best interest of everyone that all kings and queens be crowned young and die old, to give the longest stable period possible.

So by that logic, it would make more sense for a younger Royal to become the next ruler.

This, in a nutshell. It also helps for the monarchy to be seen as impartial as possible (in everything), and Charles has gotten too involved over their years. The boys don't quite carry that same tainted approach.

 Yodhrin wrote:


1. Or rather, the extremely large and fancy buildings they maintain at our expense and the treasures within their ancestors pinched off folk contribute to our tourism economy. You don't need a royal family to make tourist bucks from palaces; ask the French. Even being a fractional minority as they are, your average dole scrounger contributes more to the economy than Queeny and her brood of leeches - the money the taxpayer forks over to them doesn't get spent in local businesses, unless stores flogging diamond-encrusted ermine have popped up on local highstreets all over the country while I wasn't looking.

With regards to them supposedly leeching off the state, the Monarchy agreed a long time ago to accept a set state subsidy in exchange for the state making all the revenue off their respective land and property. It's been a while since I looked, but I believe that estate currently generates somewhere in the region of seven/eight times the income what the monarchy receives in subsidy (£35 million compared to 240 million), so it's an excellent deal for the taxpayer.

I suppose you could say that the state should just seize all of their land irrespective of the law, not pay them for it (it's valued at over a billion pounds) and cancel the subsidy, but then that sets a bad precedent for any sort of inheritance regarding the state. I'd look somewhat in askance at any party advocating something like that. Alternatively, we could stop the subsidy and just give them the land back I suppose, but I'd rather keep the royalty on board for various ceremonial purposes and save the taxpayer the loss of that large revenue and possible associated constitutional crisis, y'know?

I've met the Queen, she's very small, and for an octogenarian her official visits must be physically quite a challenge.
I had small hand in organising a visit to our base a few years back, and her schedule doesn't leave much room for having a quick sit down and a cigarette out the back by the bins.
Used to be on the fence about royalty until I saw what she actually does, and has been doing for her entire life. We don't make many frail old ladies continue to work well into their 80s.
Plus I feel a bit sorry for old Charlie. The media hates him, but he does stick up for what he thinks is right. Just a shame it's mostly bollocks.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
So if you scrap the monarchy when the queen dies, would you still be called the United Kingdom? Kinda need a king to be a kingdom...

No, we'd probably be the republic Britain or something, but the day Britain scraps its monarchy, is the day the USA scrpas the 2nd amendment.

If Scotland leaves the UK, it can no longer be called the United Kingdom, so that's another option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I read somewhere that the Queen is the only person without a Passport, since UK (or is it English?) Passports are issued in the name of the Queen.

She also doesn't need a car number plate, either! Or have to pay tax.

She does pay tax, actually.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
So if you scrap the monarchy when the queen dies, would you still be called the United Kingdom? Kinda need a king to be a kingdom...

No, we'd probably be the republic Britain or something, but the day Britain scraps its monarchy, is the day the USA scrpas the 2nd amendment.

If Scotland leaves the UK, it can no longer be called the United Kingdom, so that's another option.

Why not? They could still keep the name.
It's not like the name changed after most of Ireland split off (considering it started being called the UK after the union with Ireland).

The two kingdoms that are united in one person are England and Scotland. Since James the 6th of Scotland and 1st of England in 1603.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
So if you scrap the monarchy when the queen dies, would you still be called the United Kingdom? Kinda need a king to be a kingdom...

No, we'd probably be the republic Britain or something, but the day Britain scraps its monarchy, is the day the USA scrpas the 2nd amendment.

If Scotland leaves the UK, it can no longer be called the United Kingdom, so that's another option.

Why not? They could still keep the name.
It's not like the name changed after most of Ireland split off (considering it started being called the UK after the union with Ireland).

[pedantic] The country's name changed in 1922 precisely because of that reason. It went from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. [/pedantic]

The UK part didn't though (which was the main point)

But you're right, of course.


@ Kilkrazy: Yes, but the 'United' part only came into place with the Union with Ireland. Before then it was just the Kingdom of Great Britain.

That or the (small amount of) stuff I've learnt about the UK's history is wrong. Tbh, I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
She does pay tax, actually.

They do pay taxes but they do so "voluntarily" rather than due to it being the law.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Charlie boy has been a walking advert for pro republicans for a long time.

Yodhrin I look at the amount we spend on the Windsors as being a good investment in maintaining some of our history. I think of them as part of the heritage triad alongside EH and The National Trust. Just my opinion though.

We could just drop Andrew and his spawn down an active Volcano though.

When they have absolutely no power nor influence over our political system and most of the crown estate properties and lands have been taken into public ownership or sold off to local communities, I might consider bunging the Windsocks a few quid to put on a song & dance for the tourists and at special events a harmless historical novelty. As it stands, for me, they're symbolic of everything that's wrong with our shambolic, undemocratic, Time of Empire-obsessed establishment and need to be given their jotters along with the Lords and all the other pointless, expensive, power-preserving idiocies we're stuck with in the name of "tradition".

 Ketara wrote:

With regards to them supposedly leeching off the state, the Monarchy agreed a long time ago to accept a set state subsidy in exchange for the state making all the revenue off their respective land and property. It's been a while since I looked, but I believe that estate currently generates somewhere in the region of seven/eight times the income what the monarchy receives in subsidy (£35 million compared to 240 million), so it's an excellent deal for the taxpayer.

I suppose you could say that the state should just seize all of their land irrespective of the law, not pay them for it (it's valued at over a billion pounds) and cancel the subsidy, but then that sets a bad precedent for any sort of inheritance regarding the state. I'd look somewhat in askance at any party advocating something like that. Alternatively, we could stop the subsidy and just give them the land back I suppose, but I'd rather keep the royalty on board for various ceremonial purposes and save the taxpayer the loss of that large revenue and possible associated constitutional crisis, y'know?

Why would that be a bad precedent? Last I looked there's only the one royal family. Regardless, that land was never the royals' to begin with, it was the state's. It should belong to the legitimate government of the UK, not to one family who used to be the entirety of that government but are now a ludicrous anachronism. The crown estate deal was done specifically because the royals of the day saw which way the winds of change were blowing and struck a bargain that preserved their wealth even as their power inevitably and entirely rightly declined.

As for the crown estate being a good deal for the taxpayer; that's only true if you totally ignore the terms under which the deal was first struck. In addition to exchanging the income from the estates for the civil list(now "sovereign grant"), the government of the day agreed to take on the remaining cost of running the state from the royal family. At the time that was still half. Running the country costs a touch more these days. In addition, the sovereign grant doesn't account for all the exceptional costs of the royal family; coronations, funerals, extra policing and security services spending when they attend events etc. And also, while the income from the crown estates goes to the treasury, most of the control over the land still lies with the royal family, meaning much of it is dramatically less productive than it could be and lots of legal oddities are created that prevent valuable projects going forward(for example; coastal renewable energy as an industry is presently under-supported in Scotland because any projects would need to pay dues to the crown estates to use "their" land, sucking up most of the added value, so private investors won't put money in without support from the Scottish Government, and the SG can't afford to throw money at a project when all the benefits of the investment will end up down in London).

I'd throw the royals on the bonfire if it means rid of the Lords.

Public ownership of the estates would be a fething mess but mariginally less sickening than selling the lot off to private concerns.

 Yodhrin wrote:


When they have absolutely no power nor influence over our political system and most of the crown estate properties and lands have been taken into public ownership or sold off to local communities, I might consider bunging the Windsocks a few quid to put on a song & dance for the tourists and at special events a harmless historical novelty.

You actually advocate nationalisation of private property? On what grounds? That they're rich? That it's been in their families for generations?

I mean, there's no specific reason to go after them alone, there's plenty of others with equivalent wealth levels. So I can only surmise that you'd would advocate the nationalisation of all the private property belonging to anyone over a certain wealth level. Which would be reasonably disastrous for the economy on several of levels.

 Ketara wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


When they have absolutely no power nor influence over our political system and most of the crown estate properties and lands have been taken into public ownership or sold off to local communities, I might consider bunging the Windsocks a few quid to put on a song & dance for the tourists and at special events a harmless historical novelty.

You actually advocate nationalisation of private property? On what grounds? That they're rich? That it's been in their families for generations?

I mean, there's no specific reason to go after them alone, there's plenty of others with equivalent wealth levels. So I can only surmise that you'd would advocate the nationalisation of all the private property belonging to anyone over a certain wealth level. Which would be reasonably disastrous for the economy on several of levels.

See above: it was never private property, it was the property of the British state. That used to be the royals, but it isn't any longer; the crown estate land should be owned and controlled by the legitimate government of this country. The fact it doesn't is an anachronism resulting from the fact the crown estates deal was struck at a time when the royals still exerted significant political power.

Why would that be a bad precedent?

Primarily because when the state starts nationalising things, it makes investors, both private and corporate, extremely jittery. They start squirreling their wealth away abroad, and investing it somewhere where they know it won't be taken over 'for the people'. Disruption can be minimised if the nationalisation has extremely limited clearly defined scope and the owners of the material nationalised are compensated adequately, but generally speaking, in economics, that sort of tool is not one to be used by the state lightly.

Last I looked there's only the one royal family. Regardless, that land was never the royals' to begin with, it was the state's.

No, it was whoever's head of the family hacked off somebody else's head. If you catch my drift.

Land ownership was originally claimed through the exercise of force. Over the years, we have reserved that use of force to the Government, but ringed it about with rules and regulations. Once you start to break those rules and regulation on that basis, you're entering dangerous territory. You can't just jab a finger at the royals and say 'they deserve it' when there are plenty of other wealthy landowners about. Otherwise, it's just persecution, discrimination, and unjust treatment. You end up denying the legal rights to property ownership of the basis of 'I don't like you'.

It should belong to the legitimate government of the UK, not to one family who used to be the entirety of that government but are now a ludicrous anachronism.

This is again where it gets dicey. Why should it belong to the Government? Should all privately held land go back to the government? If not, what marks out the Royals as deserving less rights than the average citizen? You can't run a country/economy on the basis that the Government gets to take all your money away if it feels like you (or someone else) especially don't deserve it.

The crown estate deal was done specifically because the royals of the day saw which way the winds of change were blowing and struck a bargain that preserved their wealth even as their power inevitably and entirely rightly declined.

That's a very whiggish approach to viewing history.

As for the crown estate being a good deal for the taxpayer; that's only true if you totally ignore the terms under which the deal was first struck. In addition to exchanging the income from the estates for the civil list(now "sovereign grant"), the government of the day agreed to take on the remaining cost of running the state from the royal family. At the time that was still half. Running the country costs a touch more these days.

And the Government takes in all that lovely tax revenue that it didn't back then. Your point? Because unless it was, 'The Government still has to run the country out of the Crown's estate', which would be well....a bit silly, there doesn't appear to be one here.

Not to mention that the agreement was revised about three years ago. Plenty of time for the Government to amend any bits it didn't like.

In addition, the sovereign grant doesn't account for all the exceptional costs of the royal family; coronations, funerals, extra policing and security services spending when they attend events etc.

No, but it does far exceed it. I highly doubt that we spend £200 million a year ferrying the Queen around. Not to mention the fact that we're not exactly paying the Queen a salary for all those public services/appearances. She could quite easily stop doing them and incurring the costs.

On top of that, the Government could decide tomorrow it didn't care about the Queen, and withdraw those services. The Government has decided that it is for the good of the nation that no Jihadist John takes a potshot at her Madge, and I'd agree with them on that basis. Not to mention that she's a potential target, and as such, deserves the protection of the Government as a British citizen anyway.

And also, while the income from the crown estates goes to the treasury, most of the control over the land still lies with the royal family, meaning much of it is dramatically less productive than it could be and lots of legal oddities are created that prevent valuable projects going forward(for example; coastal renewable energy as an industry is presently under-supported in Scotland because any projects would need to pay dues to the crown estates to use "their" land, sucking up most of the added value, so private investors won't put money in without support from the Scottish Government, and the SG can't afford to throw money at a project when all the benefits of the investment will end up down in London).

And? It's their land. If the State really needs a specific piece, it can issue a compulsory purchase order. Otherwise, why should Lizzy have less right under British and European law than anyone else? Why should she be singled out for exclusion from the law? Why should she be discriminated against, and have her legal rights removed? Just because the Royal Family doesn't want to let anyone do anything with their property, why should they be forced to acquiesce where every other wealthy land owner in the UK can say 'no'?

See above: it was never private property, it was the property of the British state. That used to be the royals, but it isn't any longer; the crown estate land should be owned and controlled by the legitimate government of this country. The fact it doesn't is an anachronism resulting from the fact the crown estates deal was struck at a time when the royals still exerted significant political power.

No, I'm pretty certain it belonged to them by right of conquest if nothing else. God only knows that the Royals have bought and traded land and goods with other members of the aristocracy for as long as they've existed. Who judges what bits belong to 'The State'?

Otherwise, how do you plan to do it? This lumber mill and it's surrounding 10 acres were bought from the Duke of Marlborough, so they're allowed to keep that bit, but this beach was conquered by William from Harold originally so it's fair game? The Lancasters won this village in a dice game so it's allowed to be private, but this castle was conquered by Edward from the Welsh, so that's government now?

If you start on that basis, you're undermining the entire concept of British property law.

Horse manure.

I don't see why this is so hard to grasp. The British State was a Monarchy, it's now technically still a Constitutional Monarchy but in practice is almost entirely a Parliamentary Democracy, save for the undemocratic remnants of the old way.

Regardless of the form of government being used or who ran that government, the constant was the British State. The present royal family did not own most of the lands which make up the crown estate when they became the royal family, those lands were already owned by the British State which had previously been controlled by a different royal family, and the same was true of them and the one before them.

When the royals were the entire or primary part of the government of the British State, they controlled the assets of the state, but now we elect the government of the British State(ostensibly). If you remove the remnants of ceremonial royal power from the government(which is, I believe, the only rational thing to do in the 21st goddamn century), they are no longer any part of the state and so should have no ownership or control over the assets of that state.

If you want to burrow back into history and find the exact amount of land the present royal family owned back at the moment they became the royal family and give them that back, fine, but it would be a fraction of a fraction of the total land owned by the crown estate.

EDIT: Think of it this way - should the leader of the previous Labour government be considered the owner of any land they bought or properties they built using taxes? Of course not, because the state and the people running the state are distinct in any sensible modern analysis. I don't see why that same principle doesn't apply to the various and sundry monarchs of various different families who have, at one time or another, run the British State.

As for this ridiculous slippery slope argument you have going on about private property; it's funny, I didn't notice France had abolished the right to private property, nor any of the other countries which, unlike our own cowardly forelock-tugging ancestors, had the sack to overthrow their monarchies by the same force of arms those monarchs had used to steal their land.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Horse manure.

The British State was a Monarchy, it's now technically still a Constitutional Monarchy but in practice is almost entirely a Parliamentary Democracy, save for the undemocratic remnants of the old way.

Yep, I'm with you here.

Regardless of the form of government being used or who ran that government, the constant was the British State.

That depends. Is what we view as the 'State' ( or indeed, a 'State') what the Royal Family of the 13th Century made of it? Was it still a 'State ' when the law was whatever the King said it was? At what point did the 'State' come into being? Did it exist before its contemporaries viewed it as such? Can other phrases be considered to apply which mean the same thing?

Regardless. When the Monarch made the agreement not to run the country any more, they never signed any chitty saying, 'By transferring the right to exercise this amount of my power to a democratically elected body, I hereby transfer the right to all my property as well'. The two are not inextricably linked, and there is absolutely no legal basis for singling out property belonging to the monarch and saying, 'well this bit should have come with the power'. 'The Government has no right to seize property just because it's x number of years old and belongs to a family that once ruled the country, because the ownership of that property was never included (explicitly or implicitly) in the transfer of governance. Rather, the property is rather instead linked to the title, as opposed to the power.

The present royal family did not own most of the lands which make up the crown estate when they became the royal family,

The Crown estates are 'hereditary possessions'. That means that they're inherited. George III was the first to give control of them over to the Government in 1760, but it's renewed every single time a monarch comes to power. Why? Because the estate goes, along with the crown, to the next placed blood relative. In exactly the same way any traditional aristocratic title is bequeathed alongside the standard inheritance of money/possessions/etc. However, the two are linked in that one cannot have one without the other.

Legally speaking? The two are completely fused.

those lands were already owned by the British State which had previously been controlled by a different royal family, and the same was true of them and the one before them.

No. They were controlled by the Crown, which happened to embody the State as well. In the same way the Royal Family did not cede their titles when they ceded some of their power, they never ceded their rights to the land. The Royal Family wears a lot of hats, and just because it let another body borrow one doesn't mean it has a legal right to the rest of the hats.

When the royals were the entire or primary part of the government of the British State, they controlled the assets of the state, but now we elect the government of the British State(ostensibly). If you remove the remnants of ceremonial royal power from the government(which is, I believe, the only rational thing to do in the 21st goddamn century), they are no longer any part of the state and so should have no ownership or control over the assets of that state.

I think this is where the difficulty comes from. As things stand, the Monarch still is the State (technically). Parliament merely borrows the powers (technically). In the same way that the Monarchy never ceded the title 'King/Queen', they never ceded their estates, their symbols of office, or any other possessions they had. And Parliament has no more legal right to seize those estates than they do the office of 'King/Queen', or indeed the contents of the Queen's wardrobe. They have no legal basis to claim ownership whatsoever. The Monarchy has never ceded the ownership of those estates or made any intimations in that direction, any more than they have the title itself.

You believe that as power of governance has effectively transferred, so should all the possessions of the Monarch. Even if there's no legal basis. And indeed I would argue, moral basis. Let's be frank, there are vast estates about the place that are inherited along with titles. The ones possessed by the Monarch are not alone. As there is no legal basis for specifying the Monarch alone, you'd also need to go after:-

-Duke of Buccleuch & Queensberry at 240,000 acres
-Duke of Westminster at 133,100 acres
Duke of Northumberland at 130,000 acres
-Capt Alwyne Farquharson at 128,000 acres
-Earl of Seafield at 101,000 acres
-Countess of Sutherland at 82,239 acres
-Baroness Willoughby de’Eresby at 78,200 acres

There are others, but those are the major ones. Altogether, the aristocracy still controls a quarter to a third of Britain in terms of land ownership.

If you want to burrow back into history and find the exact amount of land the present royal family owned back at the moment they became the royal family and give them that back, fine, but it would be a fraction of a fraction of the total land owned by the crown estate.

I was more pointing out that you can't really say that they deserve to have this bit but not this bit. Not that you had yet, but I was heading it off, as that seemed to be the direction.

EDIT: Think of it this way - should the leader of the previous Labour government be considered the owner of any land they bought or properties they built using taxes? Of course not, because the state and the people running the state are distinct in any sensible modern analysis. I don't see why that same principle doesn't apply to the various and sundry monarchs of various different families who have, at one time or another, run the British State.

It's not quite the same. It's a bit like the Labour Leader owning his coffee machine. He decides to let the intern have the right to make all coffee from that point on. The ownership of the coffee machine (being in that office) officially transfers with the title 'Labour leader'. Fifteen years on, does the intern now own the coffee machine?

The answer is no. He was just legally allowed to make coffee with it. Just because the current Labour leader is a tiny wizened old lady and the current intern is The Rock Johnson who also happens to do most of the paperwork (duly delegated) for the 'Labour Leader' position doesn't affect the legality of the situation.

As for this ridiculous slippery slope argument you have going on about private property; it's funny, I didn't notice France had abolished the right to private property, nor any of the other countries which, unlike our own cowardly forelock-tugging ancestors, had the sack to overthrow their monarchies by the same force of arms those monarchs had used to steal their land.

Pretty sure we had at least one King's head lopped off.

We established with the conviction and execution of Charles I that the monarchy is not the state.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
We established with the conviction and execution of Charles I that the monarchy is not the state.

Kind of. What we showed there was that the group with the more successful army left standing was 'The State', because nobody was left to dispute it.

Which, to be honest, is a constant throughout time and history.

When the queen dies I will assemble my army and retake the throne. The first thing I will outlaw is walking cats on a leash.

My daughter walks her guinea pigs on a leash.

Is this the opposite British version of the Bundys?

 Ketara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Necros wrote:
Why would William or Harry be next in line... what about Charles?

A lot of people think Charles should step aside, feeling he is too old. Which is a bit funny when they're not also asking the queen to step down

I think the idea behind that is so you don't have multiple Monarch's dying so close together.

Way back when the Monarchy was a little more integral to the country's wellbeing, a new monarch usually meant there was a period of economic and political turmoil, or even outright war if it was serious enough. So it is obviously in the best interest of everyone that all kings and queens be crowned young and die old, to give the longest stable period possible.

So by that logic, it would make more sense for a younger Royal to become the next ruler.

This, in a nutshell. It also helps for the monarchy to be seen as impartial as possible (in everything), and Charles has gotten too involved over their years. The boys don't quite carry that same tainted approach.

 Yodhrin wrote:


1. Or rather, the extremely large and fancy buildings they maintain at our expense and the treasures within their ancestors pinched off folk contribute to our tourism economy. You don't need a royal family to make tourist bucks from palaces; ask the French. Even being a fractional minority as they are, your average dole scrounger contributes more to the economy than Queeny and her brood of leeches - the money the taxpayer forks over to them doesn't get spent in local businesses, unless stores flogging diamond-encrusted ermine have popped up on local highstreets all over the country while I wasn't looking.

With regards to them supposedly leeching off the state, the Monarchy agreed a long time ago to accept a set state subsidy in exchange for the state making all the revenue off their respective land and property. It's been a while since I looked, but I believe that estate currently generates somewhere in the region of seven/eight times the income what the monarchy receives in subsidy (£35 million compared to 240 million), so it's an excellent deal for the taxpayer.

I suppose you could say that the state should just seize all of their land irrespective of the law, not pay them for it (it's valued at over a billion pounds) and cancel the subsidy, but then that sets a bad precedent for any sort of inheritance regarding the state. I'd look somewhat in askance at any party advocating something like that. Alternatively, we could stop the subsidy and just give them the land back I suppose, but I'd rather keep the royalty on board for various ceremonial purposes and save the taxpayer the loss of that large revenue and possible associated constitutional crisis, y'know?

I have also heard that. The Royals actually turn a profit and aren't actually leeching off of anything.

By Yodhrins logic the UK we should abolish all leeches on the State.

Time to break the bad news to Scotland then.....

 notprop wrote:
By Yodhrins logic the UK we should abolish all leeches on the State.

Time to break the bad news to Scotland then.....

We can drop them, just get Falklands oil first flowing