Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

nice i used to live there

Your opening paragraph solves the issue. They had the right to that Crown estate income. Instead, the state gets it, and they get a paltry sum in reutn. it is hardly unfair.

170 million given up to 8 million gotten back. Oh woe.

Stop the Civil List and you would be morally obliged to give them the income from their land back. We would lose far more than we gained.

And the proportionate value of the money is bugger all anyway.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your opening paragraph solves the issue. They had the right to that Crown estate income. Instead, the state gets it, and they get a paltry sum in reutn. it is hardly unfair.

170 million given up to 8 million gotten back. Oh woe.

Stop the Civil List and you would be morally obliged to give them the income from their land back. We would lose far more than we gained.

And the proportionate value of the money is bugger all anyway.

Only whilst the Queen remains constitutional head of state

The opening paragraph only annoys me more

-Kuntz

It's THEIR land! It belongs to them as a family! If you are on a crusade to seize all private property and give it to the state, good luck in yuor revolution. Meanwhile in the real world, that they give us these millions of pounds which, in any other circumstances would be due to them, in return for a relative pittance, is absolutely nothing to moan about.

It's only State land because it was TAKEN from them in the Act of Settlement!

It belongs rightfully to them. They inherited it like any property. Break the terms of that Act, you should give the land back. Else it is simple seizure of property, morally wrong by any standard. I suppose you want to seize the land belonging to all rich people?

If feeble calls for Republicanism- especially from a feeble paper like the Guardian- are going to be made they should check facts properly first.

I am sorry you resent rich people being rich. But we have already forced them to give up the money from their own land in return for much less- an agreement the Monarchy made by agreement in the name of the public good. Wanting more is simple greed.

The miniscule outlay on the Royal Family is more than made up for by the constitutional and financial benefits they give back- quite aside from the money they have an absolute moral right to that they instead give to the State.

Your view of the act of settlement is somewhat skewed
I don't resent the rich, just the monarchy

The Act of Settlement of 1701 was designed to secure the Protestant succession to the throne, and to strengthen the guarantees for ensuring parliamentary system of government.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,407239,00.html

Some Canadians have good ideas

http://www.monarchyfreecanada.org/

I guess you read the telegraph

-Kuntz


Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's only State land because it was TAKEN from them in the Act of Settlement!

It belongs rightfully to them. They inherited it like any property. Break the terms of that Act, you should give the land back. Else it is simple seizure of property, morally wrong by any standard. I suppose you want to seize the land belonging to all rich people?

If feeble calls for Republicanism- especially from a feeble paper like the Guardian- are going to be made they should check facts properly first.

I am sorry you resent rich people being rich. But we have already forced them to give up the money from their own land in return for much less- an agreement the Monarchy made by agreement in the name of the public good. Wanting more is simple greed.

The miniscule outlay on the Royal Family is more than made up for by the constitutional and financial benefits they give back- quite aside from the money they have an absolute moral right to that they instead give to the State.

All of which is totally irrelevant to any of the points I made. The Crown Estates were land owned by the Royal family, much as any family can own land, and the subsequent additions to the Act of Settlement involved the State taking the income of that land, by agreement.

The State has no call on that land, any more than it has call on any privately owned land. So to break their agreement and take it would be theft.

If you remove the Civil List, breaking one side of the bargain, then the whole bargain falls apart and the monies from that land returns to the Windsors.

Simple as that. We make far more money out of them than we pay to them.

So what your saying is in 1701 the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family owned this land Am I the only one who can see some confusion here

Do I need to explain the relevance of that comment

The house of Hanover 52 in line, they did well out of the act of settlement

-Kuntz


Originally posted by Ushgarak
All of which is totally irrelevant to any of the points I made. The Crown Estates were land owned by the Royal family, much as any family can own land, and the subsequent additions to the Act of Settlement involved the State taking the income of that land, by agreement.

The State has no call on that land, any more than it has call on any privately owned land. So to break their agreement and take it would be theft.

If you remove the Civil List, breaking one side of the bargain, then the whole bargain falls apart and the monies from that land returns to the Windsors.

Simple as that. We make far more money out of them than we pay to them.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
So what your saying is in 1701 the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family owned this land Am I the only one who can see some confusion here

Do I need to explain the relevance of that comment

The house of Hanover 52 in line, they did well out of the act of settlement

-Kuntz

Oh well guess this thread can be closed now

I think it works out that each inhabitant of the UK actually only gives something like 32 pence to the royal family. I used to be OK with that coz it's about the price of a snickers and princess diana looked as though she could have done with one of them.

Originally posted by amity75
I think it works out that each inhabitant of the UK actually only gives something like 32 pence to the royal family. I used to be OK with that coz it's about the price of a snickers and princess diana looked as though she could have done with one of them.

I take it you not ok with it know though