So you saw it already, but typed the exact same thing anyway? Or was it you who said it in the first place? I can't remember who said it.
I think what he meant was he saw the original quota about the french having the right idea on page 1. Don't give him a hard time - we don't all share your Wildean talents for expressing ourselves perfectly in every post - or importuning men in public lavatories.
I saw Dev's post about doing what the French did but I didn't see the post about replacing the King with Napoleon until after I posted.
First part is incorrect but the second part is correct. The Crown owns the Crown Estates (the Crown being the Monarchy as an institution). The Monarch as an individual does not own the Crown Estates, which is the reason why the Queen can't sell them. The Crown Estates are exempt from tax so we don't own them; however, the Queen voluntarily pays income tax from the Crown Estates and has done since the 1990s and so does the Prince of Wales from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.
Yes, the first part is incorrect, that's what I implied - albeit sarcastically. It's awfully nice of them to pay taxes like everyone else.
The French overwhelmingly approved of Napoleon's ascension as Emperor through a referendum though. The ordinary French peasant during the French Revolution would have preferred a constitutional monarchy alongside republican principles like freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Ironically, it was the French upper and middle-classes who were the most passionate about republicanism.
I think it's difficult to say what the ordinary French peasant wanted or did not want. However, If your assumption is correct (And I'm not saying it's not) then it would seem even French peasants in the 18th century were far smarter than supporters of our own Monarchy in this 21st century where religion is still an important factor in who can actually ascend the throne.
Well, it is, considering they don't have to. To be honest, I don't mind the Monarchy as an institution as constitutional monarchy has proven to be a stable form of government and some of the most progressive countries in the world are constitutional monarchies (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands). In Britain, we have a more rigid and pronounced class system and so our Monarchy perhaps embodies something different than the continental ones. Either way, I don't think the taxpayer should pay for all of the royals. The Crown Estates were signed over to Parliament by George III and so the only person who should receive money from the Civil List is the reigning monarch.
Yeah, that's fair. Personally, I'd disestablish the Church of England and leave the constitutional monarchy in place for practical reasons.
Sorry Brett - I was with you until you described Belgium as one of the most progressive countries in the world. If there was a not 606 naughty step I think you'd be sitting on it right now.
Haha. I've never been. I only know of Scandinavia being progressive and somewhat socialist in its approach to taxation and public spending. What's wrong with Belgium?
People can call it what they like but a Constitutional Monarchy is simply another name for fuedalism, a system as outdated as the Royal Family themselves. The Constitutional Monarchies in the countries you mentioned bear no resemblance to what we have in the UK. Most civilised nations have dispensed with grace and favour appointments and the birthright of Kings and Queens granted by God, its time we had an elected head of state, and ceased to be steered by the massive PR machine employed by the Monarchy - and paid for by the taxpayer.
I'm an intolerant old bastard who takes a disliking to countries for no valid reason. Belgium's top of the list. In fairness I used to have to go to Brussels about 30 times a year for 5 or 6 years and just got sick to death of it. It is a bit of a hole.
