We all know their history. What does it matter that they were once ethnically German? So were half the population of England once. European royal houses have merrily intermingled for centuries, nobody believes their monarchy to be racially pure and wholly indigenous.
O RLY? Who's "we all" They are illegitimate anyway. Abney-Hastings should have been the King of England. Also you think it was just a "poor choice" that Harry wore a Nazi outfit for the craic? All elites and Monarchies are fascist. Philip met Hitler after all, nice chummy chat, his sisters married Nazis. Are we surprised of his racism or saying things like "I'd come back as a virus to wipe out humanity" or something very similar. Prince Andrew a chum of Jeffrey Epstein the epic **** everyone in those circles knew about. Charles the friend of Jimmy Savile, the epic **** everyone in those circles knew about. I could go for hours about why these people are the worst kind of scumbags. How about the cash they made in rebuilding Germany after WWI? Yep, they invested in Hitler's Germany. It continued to pay off well after war got under way too. The bank of England also helped the Nazis sell looted gold. Yep, true, Your Monarchy has the stink of Nazism all over them Most people have no clue as to their hole history. Why would they, who controls academia and school books and such, the elite. Is it not time you ditched these scumbag fraudsters?
Anyone who takes a cursory glance at their nation's history and can see the origins of their monarchy. It's hardly a secret. A glance further back will tell you that the "English" crown has also been held by Scots, Welsh, Norman French, Danes, as well as Anglo-Saxons, and probably a few I've missed. And their consorts have come from all over the place, so their progeny are a load of mongrels. Like most of us.
Yeah but don't assume everyone looked. That's not the most interesting bits of their history either Did you know that Dutch Royal Shell who was heavily invested in by the Dutch and British Royals, gave Hitler a large amount of gussolene for free?
You're way off track there afc, the nation owns all the properties the royal family use as part of their entitlement, if the monarchy was taken out of public funding it would obviously keep homes and land it owns outright but the nation would then take over the upkeep of Buck House etc. http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakr...billionaire-but-is-herself-not-quite-as-rich/ The Dutch(and other nations)have royal families but the are only figureheads and fund themselves, can't see why in this day and age GB can't follow suit.
The crown estate owns most of the properties used by the royals, the nation has control of the crown estate. If the royals were removed from there position as head of state they would take control of the crown estate as opposed to the nation keeping it. Legally this is what would happen based on the agreement by which the nation controls the crown estate. It was an agreement drawn up a time were the government could eat up fluctuations in the earnings off the land better than the royals could and in return for managing the lands etc a fee was paid to the royals each year. That's a simplified explanation and it's been amended since, but the principle is that as long as the royals are in power and paid an amount (currently set at 15% of the crown estate profits) the country maintains control of the crown estate. If the agreement is no longer in place, the royals would once again assume ownership and control of the crown estate.
That would require people to be happy for the government to seize private property against the countries own laws and potentially set a precedent for property seizure that was open to abuse. I'd much rather just keep them around
Nah, you're wrong afc mate, the nation owns the properties, the queen doesn't own the Crown Estates and never will, she's only the guardian of it while she's the reigning monarch. http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/our-business/faqs/
"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 all UK taxpayers. To explain further, one analogy that could be used is that The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels - part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use." So it does belong to the Sovereign, currently the Queen. But it is managed by an independent organisation and the state receives the profits.
I'm afraid I'm not wrong buddy. The details of the agreement were discussed in the House of Commons a few years ago. The royals technically could recall there private ownership any time the head of state changes. So for example when Charles comes to the throne. But I highly doubt they ever will. Previous agreements between royals and the government hadn't been adhered to and so ownership remained with the sovereign to provide the royals protection against the government not fulfilling it's side of the deal. The agreement is literally done in a way to stop the government just being able to take everything lol
We don't live in medieval times anymore afc, the royal family can't do jack **** without permission and wouldn't and couldn't just take control of the Crown Estate, the agreement between the monarchy and the government goes back centuries and is set within the Constitution of the nation. Any links to your story about a government agreement from a "few years ago"?
I completely agree the agreement goes back centuries and is legally binding. And I'm pretty sure included is the ability for the royal family to exit the agreement on the head of state changing. However that's not the important bit for this discussion. The important bit is that if we remove the royals they would be the legal owners of the crown estate and under no obligation to pay any of it into public hands. I was referencing a discussion in the House of Commons around the details of the agreement between the state and the queen. However for the most recent amendments to the agreement you only need to go back as far as the last government who introduced the flat 15% figure I believe.
The Crown Estate is worth billions, billions the CE trustees earned through investment in property etc and there's no way the monarchy can break the centuries old agreement whenever they like, the government also can't break the agreement without changing the Constitution.
Of course they can't break it whenever they like. But within the agreement is the stipulation that it is requested of each monarch upon ascending to the throne to hand over the proceeds to the state. Ergo the agreement is renewed by the royals each time the head of state changes. I can't imagine a political and social landscape whereby the royals felt they could actually refuse. Either way, the agreement is specifically designed to stop the government from being able to just seize the crown estate and hang the royals out to dry. If we get rid of the royals they will be the ones who end up with the crown estate.
