Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Prince William no longer needs his crown jewels to become monarch   (telegraph.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Prince William, Duchess of Cambridge, mr cameron, royal families, birth order  
•       •       •

12733 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Oct 2011 at 12:33 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-10-28 01:48:03 PM  

KatjaMouse: I blame Disney, myself. All the hype leading up to it, all the women I knew were talking about the fantasy of being picked up out of obscurity by a handsome Prince and have the most perfect Fairytale wedding


As a matter of fact, I took my nephews to Disney World just last week and there was a ton of little girls dressed in these princess costumes that they sell. These little expensive dresses that have to be hot as hell (it's still 80 degrees here), walking around with their father who look like they want kill themselves. So yeah, even though I realize a lot of these tourists are from other countries, most are Americans so we haven't shaken the whole monarchy thing.


czetie: Maybe I move in unusual circles, but it seemed to me that the media fascination far outstripped the average American's interest.


All I know is that there was a shiat-ton of coverage on it and the media doesn't cover what the people aren't interested in for very long. And my dad's wife dragged him to some museum of royal gowns. And no, I have no idea what happened to my father that he had to resort to her after my mom 86'd him. He was much more interesting as an alcoholic. But I digress.
 
2011-10-28 01:50:26 PM  
Once more: The British monarch does not cost the United Kingdom one red cent/pence/farthing/ha'penny/groat. Due to a series of agreements made between Parliament and the Crown, culminating with George III, all profits from Crown lands (those properties held directly by the monarch) go directly to the Exchequer. From that pool of money, Parliament then gives the monarch funds to pay for her/his upkeep and the upkeep of certain properties deemed historically and/or culturally significant (mostly castles/places sitting on Crown lands). This comes out to ~20% of what the Exchequer took in - with the overwhelming majority of what the Queen receives going to upkeep of said significant properties, and most of her other money designated to pay the salaries of her employees. If we all worked like this, our paychecks would be sent directly to Inland Revenue/IRS, and then Parliament/Congress would decide how much we got back - pocketing 80% of it - and telling us exactly how we had to spend about 80% of what we got back.

All of this is also ignoring how much of tourism income can be directly tied to monarchy-related activities

If the monarchy was abolished tomorrow, all the revenue from the Crown lands would go directly into her bank account (the land is still hers, not the UK's). Even accounting for her being in the highest tax band, her yearly income would approximately double, she would be free to use that money as she wishes, she would collect a lot of the tourism dollars in licensing fees or just directly charging tourists, and the Exchequer would have a hole to fill in the budget. The only person actually being negatively impacted by the continuation of the monarchy is the monarch.
 
2011-10-28 01:51:57 PM  
I, for one, welcome our new British Overladies.
 
2011-10-28 01:53:05 PM  

Snarfangel: Mugato: Heh heh. You still have a monarchy,

One day, they will discover you don't need a monarch to have a government, but baby steps.


Maybe the US will too, someday.
 
2011-10-28 01:58:36 PM  
You're all missing the point.

Zara Philips is now 7th in the Line of Succession.
 
2011-10-28 02:07:14 PM  

Mugato: All I know is that there was a shiat-ton of coverage on it and the media doesn't cover what the people aren't interested in for very long.


Really? I thought that the media specialized in manufacturing and promoting objects of interest, preferably ones that are cheap to cover and provide the best ROI (see: reality TV). Unfortunately, all too many people are "interested" in whatever they are told they should be interested in, like the trivial details of Brad and Angelina's private lives, anything the Kardashians do, or Lindsay Lohan's latest train wreck.

In this case, though, I think they misjudged how long it takes to manufacture interest in something without a compelling back-story of sleaze, drugs, violence and broken relationships. "Timothy Nice-but-dim Marries Katy Girl-next-door, with all the trimmings" needs a lot more build-up, and all they had was the Diana stuff.
 
2011-10-28 02:07:56 PM  

Thorak: kevin5lynn: Canada is a monarchy - our head of state is Queen Elizabeth II.

No, Canada's a Parliamentary Democracy.

Head of State /= Head of Government. The Queen is Head of State, but that position carries no actual legal power.



Didn't her representative in Canada prorogue parliament a few years back? Perhaps some political power?

/American
 
2011-10-28 02:14:04 PM  
Whenever they refer to places as "Realms", it makes me imagine their lands as full of monsters, magic, and warriors!
 
2011-10-28 02:23:49 PM  

FarkinCubsFan: Didn't her representative in Canada prorogue parliament a few years back? Perhaps some political power?

/American


Not really. There's been noise about proroguing Parliament recently, and the GG has that power, but it's almost never exerted and it was the PM who was threatening it recently.

Really, that's the extent of the GG's official power. They can prorogue Parliament, and force an election. Which, if the people liked the government, isn't going to change anything. It's a check to governmental abuse of power; if the PM has a majority and starts to abuse it, the GG can shut the government down and give the people a chance to say "hell farking no, good sir".

The GG isn't even really chosen by the Queen. Technically, the Queen selects a candidate, but the list we send her only has the one name on it. The only real power the Queen has is to fire her GG, and all that does is prevent the GG from shutting down Parliament. The Queen can't pass any laws or affect government policy, in Canada.
 
2011-10-28 02:31:42 PM  
0.tqn.com

How very progressive of them!

How long until we get a transgendered monarch here?
 
2011-10-28 02:35:52 PM  

Mugato: Cythraul: Heh, their monarchy is so ingrained into their identity, to me, it'd be weird if Britain (especially England) got rid of their nobility.

What annoys me is how fascinated Americans were with that royal wedding a few months back. We fought a war to get away from that shiat.

And before anyone brings it up, we have celebrity royalty in this country too, in the form of actors and reality show stars and just people who are famous for being famous and that's annoying too but we don't pay them taxes and they don't call us subjects.


You're right. We've got worse. We've got a super-rich, increasingly influential elite that is not subject to nearly enough public scrutiny or even marginally held accountable for the widespread negative impacts of their accumulation of wealth and exercise of political power to facilitate their further accumulation of wealth. But hey, this is a meritocracy and they're not (or not all, at least) born into it, so fark the rest of us and more power to them.
 
2011-10-28 02:43:47 PM  

Oznog: [0.tqn.com image 540x360]

How very progressive of them!

How long until we get a transgendered monarch here?


We'll probably get a transistor monarch first.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2011-10-28 02:54:13 PM  

phalamir: Once more: The British monarch does not cost the United Kingdom one red cent/pence/farthing/ha'penny/groat. Due to a series of agreements made between Parliament and the Crown, culminating with George III, all profits from Crown lands (those properties held directly by the monarch) go directly to the Exchequer. From that pool of money, Parliament then gives the monarch funds to pay for her/his upkeep and the upkeep of certain properties deemed historically and/or culturally significant (mostly castles/places sitting on Crown lands). This comes out to ~20% of what the Exchequer took in - with the overwhelming majority of what the Queen receives going to upkeep of said significant properties, and most of her other money designated to pay the salaries of her employees.
...

If the monarchy was abolished tomorrow, all the revenue from the Crown lands would go directly into her bank account (the land is still hers, not the UK's).


Um, no. If the monarchy were abolished tomorrow, the Exchequer would keep 100% of the money instead of 80%. The British monarchy does cost the UK a great deal, i.e. the 20% given back to them for no good reason.

The Crown lands -- or more properly, the Crown Estate -- belongs to the institution of the Crown (much like the Crown jewels), not to the person of the monarch. If the monarchy were abolished, I can think of no legal nor practical basis for rescinding the agreement made by George III that took the Estate out of the hands of the monarch as an individual.
 
2011-10-28 02:54:44 PM  
Another war of the roses?
 
2011-10-28 03:02:20 PM  

Oznog: [0.tqn.com image 540x360]

How very progressive of them!

How long until we get a transgendered monarch here?


Edward 2
 
2011-10-28 03:02:22 PM  
The thought of a monarchy makes ill.
While I have breath in my lungs, I won't bend a knee to anyone.
 
2011-10-28 03:07:55 PM  

Thorak: FarkinCubsFan: Didn't her representative in Canada prorogue parliament a few years back? Perhaps some political power?

/American

Not really. There's been noise about proroguing Parliament recently, and the GG has that power, but it's almost never exerted and it was the PM who was threatening it recently.

Really, that's the extent of the GG's official power. They can prorogue Parliament, and force an election. Which, if the people liked the government, isn't going to change anything. It's a check to governmental abuse of power; if the PM has a majority and starts to abuse it, the GG can shut the government down and give the people a chance to say "hell farking no, good sir".

The GG isn't even really chosen by the Queen. Technically, the Queen selects a candidate, but the list we send her only has the one name on it. The only real power the Queen has is to fire her GG, and all that does is prevent the GG from shutting down Parliament. The Queen can't pass any laws or affect government policy, in Canada.


Excellent explanation! Many thanks.
 
2011-10-28 03:11:56 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com

Catholics reciprocate with a new rule allowing Lizard Aliens to be the Pope, like that's ever gonna happen.
 
2011-10-28 03:13:06 PM  

GreenSun: Whenever they refer to places as "Realms", it makes me imagine their lands as full of monsters, magic, and warriors!


So...Australia?
 
2011-10-28 03:25:29 PM  
sinisterfish.com
They're still just hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in their society.
 
2011-10-28 03:25:43 PM  

misanthropologist: Mugato: Cythraul: Heh, their monarchy is so ingrained into their identity, to me, it'd be weird if Britain (especially England) got rid of their nobility.

What annoys me is how fascinated Americans were with that royal wedding a few months back. We fought a war to get away from that shiat.

And before anyone brings it up, we have celebrity royalty in this country too, in the form of actors and reality show stars and just people who are famous for being famous and that's annoying too but we don't pay them taxes and they don't call us subjects.

You're right. We've got worse. We've got a super-rich, increasingly influential elite that is not subject to nearly enough public scrutiny or even marginally held accountable for the widespread negative impacts of their accumulation of wealth and exercise of political power to facilitate their further accumulation of wealth. But hey, this is a meritocracy and they're not (or not all, at least) born into it, so fark the rest of us and more power to them.


As bad as it is, it isn't mandated by the government.
 
2011-10-28 03:27:40 PM  

NobleHam: You're all missing the point.

Zara Philips is now 7th in the Line of Succession.


Technically, they could make Zara's mother first if they wanted to - isn't she the oldest?

Be so much better than having to look at Dumbo-eared Chuck and his horse-faced wife. At least Zara's mother seems to have a decent head on her shoulders, as evidenced by the fat that her children have jobs.


/not completely sad that I know this - I have British relatives
 
2011-10-28 03:29:18 PM  

kevin5lynn: brigid_fitch 2011-10-28 12:45:00 PM
Tourism, my friend, tourism. Do you think there would be so many visitors to Buckingham if not to try to get a peek at the Queen or to watch the pageantry around her?

Oh, absolutely. The lack of monarchy hasn't impeded the tourism industry of France, for example.


Remove it and you've got...Canada?
Canada is a monarchy - our head of state is Queen Elizabeth II.


I KNOW Canada's a monarchy but it's not like people can hang around Ottowa hoping to get a glance at the Queen. Try not to be so literal.
 
2011-10-28 03:38:50 PM  

Heron: Bad move; this will surely lead to bloody factional struggles over the throne when the current monarch dies. And what are they going to replace it with? Tanistry? Yeah; that worked REAL well for the Scots. Go ask Finlaech mac Ruaidri how well that system played out.



Dammit. You made me learn something new today...
 
2011-10-28 03:43:44 PM  

Thorak: There's a very specific reason for the aristocracy.

[Cool stuff.]

Which is why the Monarchy exists. Because letting them wear a crown and have no power is better than taking the crown away and letting them have the power back.


That's nifty, did not know any of that. Makes a weird kind of sense.

As far as the wedding thing, It didn't interest me, but it was pretty neat to see something like this happen in this day and age, 'cause it's the sort of thing that you usually only read about in story books or your grandparents' time. I only saw snippets here and there (epic lols at some of those hats!), but I do respect all of the pomp and dignity of the entire event. After all that had happened with Charles & Diana, I can understand wanting to "get it right," if that makes any sense.

/never was a "Disney Princess"
//was too busy playing video games and saving the world
 
2011-10-28 03:53:33 PM  

mattharvest: mitchcumstein1: Mr Cameron said the historic rules were "at odds with the modern countries that we have become".

Kind of like having a King or Queen?

Don't get me wrong, I love those useless assholes, but come on.

You love them? Which part, the absurd amount of money the government spends on them, or the completely worthless and baseless sense of entitlement they all have?

They're actually objectively bad people. They choose to live that life instead of saying "You know, I didn't earn one damn cent of this, nor did any of my ancestors in the last two hundred years, so I'm going to abdicate and go live as a normal human." No matter how much charity they do, they can't evade the fact that there is no reason whatsoever to give them all this money and attention, nor spend as much money on protecting them, etc.


The line of succession is hundreds of people long, you'd have a lot of people to convince to give up their chances at being royalty.
 
2011-10-28 04:06:45 PM  

Aigoo: NobleHam: You're all missing the point.

Zara Philips is now 7th in the Line of Succession.

Technically, they could make Zara's mother first if they wanted to - isn't she the oldest?

Be so much better than having to look at Dumbo-eared Chuck and his horse-faced wife. At least Zara's mother seems to have a decent head on her shoulders, as evidenced by the fat that her children have jobs.


/not completely sad that I know this - I have British relatives


Nah, Princess Anne was born after Charles. She did just jump past Andrew and Edward though.
 
2011-10-28 04:34:32 PM  
Folks you do realise that none of this has actually been enacted yet? It will require an Act of Parliament from the British Parliament and similar enactments in all the countries in which the British Monarch is head of state. All we have at the moment is a gentleman's agreement that it will all happen, probably to shut David Cameron up.
 
2011-10-28 04:36:09 PM  

czetie: The Crown lands -- or more properly, the Crown Estate -- belongs to the institution of the Crown (much like the Crown jewels), not to the person of the monarch. If the monarchy were abolished, I can think of no legal nor practical basis for rescinding the agreement made by George III that took the Estate out of the hands of the monarch as an individual.


That same agreement also says that the Parliament can have control over the Estate if they continue to maintain him and his family's household and expenses.

So you've got two choices; continue to make ~£230 million off the Crown Estate, of which you give ~£40 million to the Monarchy as per the agreement, or you can break that agreement, and give all the Crown lands back, and lose the ~£190 million you're making off it each year. The very agreement that you're using to say "they can't take it when they go" is the entire basis of the existing system you're denouncing. Break that, and it all falls apart and they'll be taking their lands back.

Plus, the timer's set on how long it takes until Prince William runs for Prime Minister.
 
2011-10-28 05:25:42 PM  

L33t Squirrel: As far as the wedding thing, It didn't interest me, but it was pretty neat to see something like this happen in this day and age, 'cause it's the sort of thing that you usually only read about in story books or your grandparents' time. I only saw snippets here and there (epic lols at some of those hats!), but I do respect all of the pomp and dignity of the entire event.


Oh God.
 
2011-10-28 06:03:52 PM  

phalamir: If the monarchy was abolished tomorrow, all the revenue from the Crown lands would go directly into her bank account (the land is still hers, not the UK's).


No. The land belongs to the Crown, which is distinct from the monarch, and which is the practical embodiment of all branches of government. Abolishing the monarchy would not transfer ownership of the Crown Estate to the most recent monarch.
 
2011-10-28 06:12:45 PM  

cgraves67: Did they take away the anti-Catholic rule too? Can I finally take the throne?


They took part of it away, which is horrific. Damned Papists have ruined everything. Their tolerance of them has led directly to their downfall and this will actually spell the end of their empire.
 
2011-10-28 06:30:31 PM  

profplump: No. The land belongs to the Crown, which is distinct from the monarch, and which is the practical embodiment of all branches of government. Abolishing the monarchy would not transfer ownership of the Crown Estate to the most recent monarch.


It's a conditional arrangement. The government gets control over what is now the Crown Estate, it has to pay for the household upkeep and civil expenses of the Monarchy.

If it gives up the latter, it has to give up the former. It's the same kind of arrangement as an engagement ring; if you decide you're breaking it off, you need to give the ring back. Obviously, the situation with the Crown properties is much more complex and long-standing, but the government would have an uphill battle trying to seize the properties while abandoning their commensurate obligations in the process.
 
2011-10-28 06:51:20 PM  
Thorak
and give all the Crown lands back, and lose the ~£190 million you're making off it each year.


That is incorrect - removing the monarchy does not require to "give back" the crown land. They belong to the people.
 
2011-10-28 06:56:39 PM  
Thorak

If it gives up the latter, it has to give up the former. It's the same kind of arrangement as an engagement ring; if you decide you're breaking it off, you need to give the ring back.


You're just making this up on the fly. Are you Prince William, by any chance?
 
2011-10-28 07:15:56 PM  
Holy crap I never thought I'd see the day. Well done, United Kingdom :D
 
2011-10-28 07:28:38 PM  
Isn't... the fact that some hill chieftain beat up another hill chieftain the ultimate basis for our laws on private property?

Authority doesn't just happen in a vacuum...
 
2011-10-28 08:12:33 PM  

Thorak: There's a very specific reason for the aristocracy.

It keeps them out of government.

They're wealthy landowners, and they would continue to be wealthy landowners if they didn't have a title. They're wealthy landowners who've been politically active for hundreds of years. If they weren't "the monarchy", they wouldn't suddenly disappear, they'd suddenly be well-educated, fantastically wealthy people, with strong political foundations, who are now free to run for parliament.

Because they can't, right now. They're not legally able to. You can't be the Crown Prince and the Prime Minister. And if you abolish the Monarchy, I guarantee that's what would end up happening, both because of the general goodwill toward the Monarchy that the British people hold, and because they have the money and training to campaign for it and win. At which point, the still have all the money and wealth they had as the Monarchy, but now they also have real political control in a way they do not, currently.


Which is why the Monarchy exists. Because letting them wear a crown and have no power is better than taking the crown away and letting them have the power back.


Which is why when you take the crown away you take away their money, too. It's not like they earned it. Confiscate it, use it to feed the poor, and throw them out in the street.
 
2011-10-28 08:22:42 PM  
The 16 "realms", including the UK, Canada and Australia, also agreed to scrap outdated laws

You mean like the monarchy in general?
 
2011-10-28 08:27:14 PM  
The monarchy is a good system when it works like the UK model. As an Aussie the Queen is our head of state and her representative is the Governor General ( at the moment that is Quentin Bryce (new window) She does very little except as a figurehead for the government - very little power except to dissolve Parliament at the request of the PM or Opposition Leader. A good person to use for State occasions and the like...

If we become a republic then the GG would be like a President - but without any power to make law or change the system we have. A popular president like the US one would be a disaster and I'm grateful we haven't gone down that road. It's a system open to horrible abuse.

As it stands a monarchy is a very stable, non-interfering method of keeping things clean
 
2011-10-28 08:43:29 PM  

Summercat: Isn't... the fact that some hill chieftain beat up another hill chieftain the ultimate basis for our laws on private property?


No. "Private Property" didn't really exist as we think of it today until people like Jefferson made it so. Prior to that, you claimed land you were using, and tada - it was yours. As Locke said, you "mixed your labour" with it. We had police officers, and "civilized" society long before we actually had the modern concept of private property ownership.
 
2011-10-29 12:56:47 AM  
agrees:
upload.wikimedia.org


/hot
//also linked in such a manner as to steal bandwidth
 
2011-10-29 09:11:48 AM  

SphericalTime: Calm Down You Spaz: Great now what happens when the crown princess brings home a black guy

/ look who's coming to dinner
// once you go black...

The Queen in Doctor Who several thousand years from now was black. She was actually a very, very interesting character and I almost wished she would become a companion.


Liz Ten, right? More than interesting. I too wish she had jumped on board the tardis.
 
2011-10-29 09:39:25 AM  

Thorak: That same agreement also says that the Parliament can have control over the Estate if they continue to maintain him and his family's household and expenses.


Yeah, but no. This argument is wrong on two grounds.

First, the Estates and their income have been given up, in perpetuity. The money that goes back to the monarch and family is essentially a courtesy, because nobody wants to see a destitute royal family. [Yes, I know that sounds appealing at first sight, but the reality would be a lot of Prince Andrews and Duchess Porkies running around making sleazy little backroom deals to pay for their lifestyles.] There is no legal basis, under any conceivable circumstance, under which control of them could return to the royal family.

Second, the Estates have never belonged to the monarch, they've always belonged to the Crown, which is an institution, not a person. If the institution is abolished as an element of the British government, the Estates will pass to some other branch of government (much as they did under Cromwell's Commonwealth). The idea that title would revert to the last monarch before abolition is absurd. It makes as much legal sense as suggesting that Edward VIII could have kept the Estates when he abdicated.

Thorak: If it gives up the latter, it has to give up the former. It's the same kind of arrangement as an engagement ring; if you decide you're breaking it off, you need to give the ring back. Obviously, the situation with the Crown properties is much more complex and long-standing, but


Again, no. It's not remotely like an engagement ring. It's much more like the Crown jewels, which also belong to the institution of the Crown rather than to the reigning monarch. The monarch gets to wear them only as long as he or she is monarch. If the monarchy is abolished, the Crown jewels will go into a museum somewhere (or more likely, very good replicas will go into a museum and the real jewels will go into a vault), surrounded by a chintzy "British Royal Experience" exhibit including bad waxworks of former royals, a shrine to Saint Diana of Wales, and a cheesy gift shop on the way out.

Similarly, the monarch gets payments from the income of the Estates in order to maintain suitable pomp and circumstances, just like he or she gets to wear the jewels. No monarchy, no pomp and circumstance, no payments.


the government would have an uphill battle trying to seize the properties while abandoning their commensurate obligations in the process.

It's irrelevant given the points above, but this is a very good reason why the Estates wouldn't revert to the last monarch even if they could (which they can't). One of the obligations that goes along with the Estates is financial responsibility for the cost of the civil government, civil service and diplomatic service. However, the income from the Estates is not remotely adequate to covering that cost, which is why no monarch would accept that poisoned chalice ever if it were on offer.

Ironically, this disparity between income and obligations is precisely why the Crown Estates along with this commensurate obligation were transferred over in the first place.

To compound the irony: congratulations on neatly proving that your own argument is absurd.
 
2011-10-29 04:07:37 PM  

czetie:
Yeah, but no. This argument is wrong on two grounds.

Three, because his hair is a bird.
 
Displayed 45 of 95 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report