The Royal Family

[Carl the Llama]

9 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

You didn't read the parts about the trade deals then, or the Crown estate? 

I read it all, but as I said the estate would exist anyway.  Taking us back to the Versailles example:  They haven't torn that down just because there's no King or Queen in France anymore.  As for the trade deals: Which trade deals and why do they require an active monarchy to fight for them?  I'm sorry but that article is vague fluff.

[FoxesDeb]

2 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

I read it all, but as I said the estate would exist anyway.  Taking us back to the Versailles example:  They haven't torn that down just because there's no King or Queen in France anymore.  As for the trade deals: Which trade deals and why do they require an active monarchy to fight for them?  I'm sorry but that article is vague fluff.

So not as you said then. Yes the Crown estate may possibly still exist, but it wouldn't belong to the Crown anymore as that wouldn't be a thing, so would it still give 75% of it's profits to the treasury? Surely without the Crown it would be sold off to private investors, say for example Regent Street was sold, would the new owner still need to pay 75% of the profit in tax? That may well be the case but I don't know? 

 

Nobody is suggesting that Buckingham Palace be torn down without the monarchy I don't think  but without the pageantry which exists alongside it I very much doubt that as many tourists would be as interested in it, as I said before, France is the most visited country in Europe, so it stands to reason that Versailles will therefore be the most visited European palace. France also has better weather and better food! 

 

Ultimately, it's pretty clear that the RF bring in far more than they cost, and let's be honest, the UK doesn't really have much else going for it 

[Carl the Llama]

26 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

So not as you said then. Yes the Crown estate may possibly still exist, but it wouldn't belong to the Crown anymore as that wouldn't be a thing, so would it still give 75% of it's profits to the treasury? Surely without the Crown it would be sold off to private investors, say for example Regent Street was sold, would the new owner still need to pay 75% of the profit in tax? That may well be the case but I don't know? 

 

Nobody is suggesting that Buckingham Palace be torn down without the monarchy I don't think  but without the pageantry which exists alongside it I very much doubt that as many tourists would be as interested in it, as I said before, France is the most visited country in Europe, so it stands to reason that Versailles will therefore be the most visited European palace. France also has better weather and better food! 

 

Ultimately, it's pretty clear that the RF bring in far more than they cost, and let's be honest, the UK doesn't really have much else going for it 

Why would it not become publicly run (it kind of already is) and pay 100% of the profit?   

 

As for tourism there's plenty of opportunity to boost it:  Open the palace up and let people pay to wander around inside and take pictures, just imagine how much people would pay to take selfies in the Queen's bedroom.  My point with Versailles is that it still garners interest because of the grandiose architecture, the fancy gardens and the history behind it all, Buckingham would be essentially the same deal in fact I'd put good money it it being even more popular, certainly while the family are still in living memory.

[FoxesDeb]

29 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Why would it not become publicly run (it kind of already is) and pay 100% of the profit?   

 

As for tourism there's plenty of opportunity to boost it:  Open the palace up and let people pay to wander around inside and take pictures, just imagine how much people would pay to take selfies in the Queen's bedroom.  My point with Versailles is that it still garners interest because of the grandiose architecture, the fancy gardens and the history behind it all, Buckingham would be essentially the same deal in fact I'd put good money it it being even more popular, certainly while the family are still in living memory.

Because the cost the to the UK government to buy out the Crown estate would be an estimated £14 billion, for them to then give 100% of the profit back to the public purse surely makes no financial sense? 

 

As for taking selfies in the Queen's bedroom, well each to their own I suppose.. 

[Foxdiamond]

9 hours ago, FoxyPV said:

There's no defence of DeV here. That man was a **** and whilst Ireland was neutral during the war it still allowed UK and US forces to be based there.

 

The Royal family were all supporting the Nazis before the war started, like really..... Jesus Christ at least do a bit of research. (You could say that some of them still lean that way - Princess Michael of Kent)

I would guess that quite a lot of people have benefited from The Princes Trust and The Duke of Edinburgh Awards.

[Guest worth_the_wait]

11 hours ago, FoxyPV said:

There's no defence of DeV here. That man was a **** and whilst Ireland was neutral during the war it still allowed UK and US forces to be based there.

 

 

Just for my information, as I apparently haven't done much research ...

 

During the 2nd World War, could you tell me exactly where all these UK and US forces were based in Éire (Irish Republic, Republic of Ireland, Southern Ireland, or whatever else you want to call it).

[FoxyPV]

16 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

Because the cost the to the UK government to buy out the Crown estate would be an estimated £14 billion, for them to then give 100% of the profit back to the public purse surely makes no financial sense? 

 

As for taking selfies in the Queen's bedroom, well each to their own I suppose.. 

You don't buy back stolen land.

 

The land belonged to the people before the crown took it.

 

@worth_the_wait Google or history books are your friends

[SecretPro]

Prince Andrew WILL face a civil trial

 

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-judge-refuses-to-throw-out-virginia-giuffres-sexual-assault-lawsuit-against-royal-12508881

[ClaphamFox]

16 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Prince Andrew WILL face a civil trial

 

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-judge-refuses-to-throw-out-virginia-giuffres-sexual-assault-lawsuit-against-royal-12508881

...albeit in a court with no jurisdiction in the UK. It will be interesting to see whether he tries to tough it out or the Royal family decides enough is enough and pays her off just to get the story out of the news... 

[Guest worth_the_wait]

6 hours ago, FoxyPV said:

@worth_the_wait Google or history books are your friends

Thanks for the tip.   I hadn't thought of that.
 
Although by lucky coincidence, I have a copy of Brian Girvin's book "The Emergency (Neutral Ireland 1939-45)" - a 385 page definitive guide to the goings-on in the Republic of Ireland during the 2nd World War.
 
Anyway, back to your assertion that "whilst Ireland was neutral during the war it still allowed UK and US forces to be based there."
 
I politely re-ask the question, as you haven't answered it yet ... During the 2nd World War, could you please tell me exactly where all these UK and US forces were based in Éire (Irish Republic, Republic of Ireland, Southern Ireland, or whatever else you want to call it).   
 
I'm genuinely interested, as it sounds like you might know more about the subject than Brian Girvin.

 

[kenny]

7 hours ago, FoxyPV said:

You don't buy back stolen land.

 

The land belonged to the people before the crown took it.

 

@worth_the_wait Google or history books are your friends

Can you provide some more information on this too? I would be interested to learn more?

[FoxesDeb]

7 hours ago, FoxyPV said:

You don't buy back stolen land.

 

The land belonged to the people before the crown took it.

 

@worth_the_wait Google or history books are your friends

The Crown estate is much more than just land though. 

[Carl the Llama]

6 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

The Crown estate is much more than just land though. 

Sur but its portfolio could still be easily absorbed into public ownership, the only reason it would be difficult is because people with vested interests want it to be.

[kenny]

28 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Sur but its portfolio could still be easily absorbed into public ownership, the only reason it would be difficult is because people with vested interests want it to be.

As it isn't owned by either the Royal family nor the government, any constitutional change would result in there being an exchange of funds at market value I would expect. 

 

I suppose the government could totally shaft the RF and hope to close down any legal challenges. But as the estate was passed from private ownership to the current arrangement in exchange for the sovereignty grant, it would be a struggle.

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

5 minutes ago, kenny said:

As it isn't owned by either the Royal family nor the government, any constitutional change would result in there being an exchange of funds at market value I would expect. 

 

I suppose the government could totally shaft the RF and hope to close down any legal challenges. But as the estate was passed from private ownership to the current arrangement in exchange for the sovereignty grant, it would be a struggle.

https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/resources/faqs/

Quote

• Who owns The Crown Estate?

  The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

  The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation's finances.

I don't see where any exchanging needs to take place let alone at market value, they just need to change the statute and tell the portfolio management folks to carry on doing what they're doing. 

Edited 12 January 2022 by Carl the Llama
Yes that's a simplification because there would obviously need to be a lot of operational changes with no Royals to cater for and new public services to manage but the point remains

[kenny]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/resources/faqs/

I don't see where any exchanging needs to take place let alone at market value, they just need to change the statute and tell the portfolio management folks to carry on doing what they're doing. 

It came into this status by donating the lands in 1760 (Wikipedia - sorry).

 

So you could change the law and constitutional but only the Corbynistas of the world believe it would be a simple switch of ownership. In effect it was donated from private ownership to be kept for a specific use. If this use is no longer needed then it would revert back to the original owner under law.

 

There are many areas of land in public use that are similar such as military bases donated by landowners during the war.

[Parafox]

Just as an aside to this, back in the day ambulances were described as "Crown vehicles". In other words, owned by the royal estate and as a result, were exempt from road tax and some areas of traffic law such as parking in restricted areas. I remember once we had to leave the ambulance off the road in a driveway. The homeowner came out to remonstrate with us. My somewhat 'old school' crewmate replied "that ambulance belongs to the Queen. I'll park it where I like"! 

[Carl the Llama]

5 minutes ago, kenny said:

It came into this status by donating the lands in 1760 (Wikipedia - sorry).

 

So you could change the law and constitutional but only the Corbynistas of the world believe it would be a simple switch of ownership. In effect it was donated from private ownership to be kept for a specific use. If this use is no longer needed then it would revert back to the original owner under law.

 

There are many areas of land in public use that are similar such as military bases donated by landowners during the war.

Usually when countries remove monarchies they don't then let the former royals retain control of all the land they owned as a ruling monarch, in fact they'd often be lucky to retain ownership of their heads, I don't see why there would be anything controversial about the massive amount of land which currently belongs to the crown becoming officially publicly owned following the removal of said crown.  It essentially already operates as though it is anyway.

[Foxdiamond]

6 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Usually when countries remove monarchies they don't then let the former royals retain control of all the land they owned as a ruling monarch, in fact they'd often be lucky to retain ownership of their heads, I don't see why there would be anything controversial about the massive amount of land which currently belongs to the crown becoming officially publicly owned following the removal of said crown.  It essentially already operates as though it is anyway.

No doubt the land would be sold off to other millionaires and fenced off so the public did not access anyway . Be careful what you wish for. Money to be made! 

[kenny]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Usually when countries remove monarchies they don't then let the former royals retain control of all the land they owned as a ruling monarch, in fact they'd often be lucky to retain ownership of their heads, I don't see why there would be anything controversial about the massive amount of land which currently belongs to the crown becoming officially publicly owned following the removal of said crown.  It essentially already operates as though it is anyway.

We have strict laws on land ownership (and head removal of previous heads of state) on this country which would make the approch difficult.

 

A constitutional change could make this possible. It would be the opportune time to decide who has too much property and take it from them and redistribute accordingly.

[Carl the Llama]

19 minutes ago, kenny said:

We have strict laws on land ownership (and head removal of previous heads of state) on this country which would make the approch difficult.

 

A constitutional change could make this possible. It would be the opportune time to decide who has too much property and take it from them and redistribute accordingly.

We're talking about one unique case where most of the necessary infrastructure is already in place to facilitate the change. 

 

When did ending monarchy become synonymous with extreme communism?  You can be better than resorting to red scare to defend your position.

[Dahnsouff]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

Usually when countries remove monarchies they don't then let the former royals retain control of all the land they owned as a ruling monarch, in fact they'd often be lucky to retain ownership of their heads, I don't see why there would be anything controversial about the massive amount of land which currently belongs to the crown becoming officially publicly owned following the removal of said crown.  It essentially already operates as though it is anyway.

Do you have examples? It sounds like regicide could be one such model and as such land reclamation is inherent in the process!

Genuinely interested.

 

edit: decided to not be lazy

 

https://www.insider.com/countries-used-to-be-monarchies-abolished-history

Edited 12 January 2022 by Dahnsouff

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Foxdiamond said:

No doubt the land would be sold off to other millionaires and fenced off so the public did not access anyway . Be careful what you wish for. Money to be made! 

Maybe, but a lot of it is already rented out to millionaires so it may well stay that way (I'm naively assuming this all takes place in a future with less corrupt MPs than our current lot).

[kenny]

12 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

We're talking about one unique case where most of the necessary infrastructure is already in place to facilitate the change. 

 

When did ending monarchy become synonymous with extreme communism?  You can be better than resorting to red scare to defend your position.

I don't have a position as such. But you are proposing the siezing of private property that was donated (many years ago) under an agreement that monies would be paid in return. Should this agreement be broken then it makes sense that it would return to the owner.

 

I can't see there is much difference to taking properties away from private landlords and distributing elsewhere.

 

It doesn't seem like a reasonable way forward to me, but I understand that others feel differently. It is clear though that a shift in the laws of ownership would be required that would effect everyone else.

[Carl the Llama]

24 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Do you have examples? It sounds like regicide could be one such model and as such land reclamation is inherent in the process!

Genuinely interested.

 

edit: decided to not be lazy

 

https://www.insider.com/countries-used-to-be-monarchies-abolished-history

Yeah I'm no history buff but the French revolution and guillotines obviously spring to mind.  To my knowledge it's not something that's ever really happened cordially though I'm sure there must be examples of it, hopefully a forum historian can answer that one.  Would be nice if we could be the first though

 

12 minutes ago, kenny said:

I don't have a position as such. But you are proposing the siezing of private property that was donated (many years ago) under an agreement that monies would be paid in return. Should this agreement be broken then it makes sense that it would return to the owner.

 

I can't see there is much difference to taking properties away from private landlords and distributing elsewhere.

 

It doesn't seem like a reasonable way forward to me, but I understand that others feel differently. It is clear though that a shift in the laws of ownership would be required that would effect everyone else.

It's not really seizing though, is it?  The land was previously being used to generate funds to govern the country, so the act of 'donating' it was to effectively maintain its purpose while retaining an income for the monarchy.  Without that deal I imagine the same result would have been achieved through less pleasant means.  Don't get me wrong, I'm no rabid anti-monarchist, I just don't really see the point of them anymore nor do I think the arguments in favoUr of it or against changing things really hold up to scrutiny.