Not what happens in Australia or Canada both modelled on the British system. Yes, technically they have the Queen too but she has zero power there. Is the Queen a president in all but name? No. Why would getting rid of her make the PM one. Sorry, but to me that's a ridiculous argument. Why? If the people don't want that then they don't have to do that. Model it on Australia or Canada instead of the US. It's not like she does enough to warrant a position to do her role. Her roles are mostly ceremonial. Give them to the speaker of the house, or the head of a reformed house of Lords. And typically last 3 generations. Poverty can remain in a family for hundreds of years, but Mega wealth in the US typically dissipates over 3 generations. Much of those mega wealthy earned the wealth their on their own.
The Crown Estates belong to the "Monarchy" not the monarch. In other words it's a government institution and belongs to the people. It has belonged to the government, not the monarch since the time of George III. The monarch, Queen Elizabeth, does have her own holdings and sizable investments outside crown estates that do legitimately belong to her. Technically the crown estates belong to the people though, not the monarch.
No you're wrong mate. The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch, not personally, so she can't sell it but it doesn't belong to the government either which means it also does not belong to the people. Edit: ''The Crown Estate is an independent commercial business, created by Act of Parliament.''
A guy I network with replied to an email I sent him last Friday yesterday. He's a senior level corporate type, but very pleasant. His reply said "I've just returned from Windsor sore-headed..... etc"
[QUOTE="Milk in the bag, post: 11768836, member: 1026804"]Not what happens in Australia or Canada both modelled on the British system. Yes, technically they have the Queen too but she has zero power there. Queen has zero political power here? So...in other words they have the queen as ceremonial head of state to varying degrees of participation, a parliamentary system with the PM as leader of the govt ..... so not remotely examples of an alternative.... being, well, the same. A separation of the ceremonial from the political. So...give me an actual example of a state that is an alternative. Is the Queen a president in all but name? No. Why would getting rid of her make the PM one. Sorry, but to me that's a ridiculous argument. Because it is inevitable... you expand the role of the PM to presidential levels and they become.. .presidential.... the erosion of cabinet since Thatcher shows this is the way it would go. What wouldn't be in place would be the political checks that a formal separate executive has...like the US... Why? If the people don't want that then they don't have to do that. Model it on Australia or Canada instead of the US. As of this moment the people still want the monarchy so .... As did those two countries.. .what they didn't want was political power being held in the UK and they removed that. It's not like she does enough to warrant a position to do her role. Her roles are mostly ceremonial. Give them to the speaker of the house, or the head of a reformed house of Lords. That's just a throw away statement with no evidence to back it up. While she's dialled back her duties recently due to age, she was seen as the hardest working head of state around....being the ceremonial head of state to more than one country, and head of the 50+ commonwealth countries. What more exactly would you want her to do to "earn" being a ceremonial head of state? List the extra duties. Still waiting to hear how a civil head of state could perform the exact same role for less money as well... although I doubt the commonwealth countries would want the latest UK fad to represent them. Speaker of the House? Have you seen John Bercow ....lord save us from that! She doesn't play golf every weekend either ..... And typically last 3 generations. Poverty can remain in a family for hundreds of years, but Mega wealth in the US typically dissipates over 3 generations. Much of those mega wealthy earned the wealth their on their own.[/QUOTE] 3 generations? I'd like a source on that one... when you say wealth are you including place in society and political influence or just a bank statement line? Plenty of the Lords of this land are technically broke (open their great houses and castles to pay for the up keep) you'll still find their children will waltz into whatever they want based on the name. Most of the first generation earned it in the UK too.... it's just an older state....and the methodology of ripping of masses somewhere changed slightly .... but not much...tomahawks instead of canon. The altruistic "off the sweat of their own back" rags to riches yank is largely a myth. There are notable exceptions but usually in next gen technologies and other than Gates, their offspring will be the new movers and shakers. The only difference is the fancy titles.
George III gave up the Crown Estates. It is held in the name of the ruling monarch, as a British institution, and the Queen and others are paid from the profit of it, it does not actually belong to her. George III gave it up to have parliament get him out of his own persoanl financial disaster. If the monarchy was dissolved. Those would be British lands and the money would go to the British people (government). Let's not forget that the Crown Estates all started with private land being seized by force from citizens by the crown. They are ill gotten gains from the start.
I did, Australia and Canada. Queen plays no role there except the occasional visit and historical nods. If the royal family ceased to exist they would go on exactly as they do now. Absolutely nothing would change. They wouldn't suddenly elect a president and build the white house. So in other words, any move towards having a presidential system is completely seperate from having a Queen. You point at the process happening even though you have a Queen. Removing a ceremonial head wouldn't change Parliament. That was hypothetical. I was pointing out that the UK wouldn't have to adopt the US political model if they got rid of the queen. There would be no reason to. Canada and Australia function just fine without a President. What exactly does she do that you think is important? Go traipsing the globe having kids now before her in Africa. Is that really a necessary job? She is unnecessary. There doesn't need to be a Queen. Or a replacement for the queen. She doesn't do anything important. You can put Sir Isaac Newton, or Charles Darwin on banknotes and stamps. A source... Sure... http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/ 70% lose wealth by 2nd generation. 90% by 3rd. I don't think any title of nobility should hold any power other than symbolic.
Anyways all's done and dusted now the homeless can return 2 the streets and the fat yanks can fook off home..yes.and the German royals can carry on sucking our money from the British purse
That's what happens at the moment. The lands are British lands and the money from them goes to the Treasury for the benefit of the British people. They are held in trust by the monarch for the nation. If Parliament abolished the monarchy, in principle, it would be breaking its deal with the monarch over the Crown Estate and therefore ought to give it all back.
I find it amusing that at the time the self proclaimed leaders of the free world elected a Kleptocracy, dissolving global partnerships and espousing isolationism while stirring racial and gender divides... A family born into unelected power was just reconfirmed to continue being a symbol of partnership and cooperation between 53 countries that were used and abused in the name of that crown in the past. Think those that have voiced opinions either way on here are pretty set lol. I do think by accident rather than design of history we have a set up where the royal family run in fear of being seen as political to insure their existence making them perfect for a ceremonial role. I just can't see the benefits of the vacuum of their removal or the upsides of a replacement. Don't think we will see either anyway. The majority of the people don't want it. I do think the young generation will make them more European in nature of scale. But as usual with the UK (Brexit ref notwithstanding) it'll be evolution and not revolution lol. It'll take the older generation to die out. Until the next wedding!
I doubt we'll see the abolishment of the monarchy in our lifetimes. If it did happen though, it would almost be like a mini brexit with people arguing who would get what and how things would work. I can't see Britain ever going full-France about the matter. If it ever came down to a republic. Britain would see them off politely and fairly. I find it very unlikely the royals would get more than a sliver of the crown estates if they were removed though... But a bit of a pointless debate at this point how much they would get if that happened.
To be fair... He outlawed Mince Pies, he was far worse than any royalty. Noone who dislikes mince pies should ever have a position of authority.
the crown is built of murderous terror and rape in foreign lands...........no one in thy right mind could ever justify them surely.......but if they do it clearly shows them up for being the puppet psychopaths they are and always will be.............................hang the fking lot of em
A description of pretty much every successful big global state.... Wearing a crown doesn't seem to directly effect the ability to grab territory or resources. Govts of USSR Govts of USA Hitler Cromwell Republic's of Rome Napoleon And so on... Edit: and Britain's dominance was largely under Victoria who other than an early tendency for bias towards certain politicians held almost the same limited power as Elizabeth II
For the few advocating it here ............. The Treason Felony Act 1848 - makes it a criminal offence, punishable by life imprisonment, to advocate abolition of the monarchy in print, even by peaceful means.
