Gushing over royals

I suggested no such thing. I merely pointed out the source of royal wealth. If I were to develop that theme, I would suggest that, rather than disentangle the warrant, the source carries with it a moral obligation. For example, the Duchy of Cornwall extracts £20m per annum in rents from one of the poorest counties in England and that carries an obligation. You may say that Charles fulfils that with his charities, but farmers struggling on an income of less than 10k p.a. might not agree with you and would prefer some rent relief. It is the lack of awareness by the aristocracy of this moral obligation that needs to be addressed. I'll give you a reverse example. Some of the great estates in Scotland have, in recent years, handed over large parcels of land to newly created bodies to own on behalf on the local people and for income generated to be used for the common benefit. So it can be done. MORE please !
Sorry, but the same could be said of anyone wealthy, you're advocating that a certain demographic should provide more
of their wealth to benefit others, in other words give it away. I've no problem with anyone that does, fair play to them
and the recipients, but why just target aristocracy?
 
The crown estates ultimately belong to the state. This is easily demonstrated. When James II was kicked off the throne in 1688 - by Parliament! - he did not retain the crown estates. They were transferred to the king appointed by Parliament, William III.

The present Queen is only Queen because of the 1701 Act of Settlement, which can be repealed at any time. The crown estates attach to the office, not the person. Like a tied cottage.

When Edward VIII abdicated, his brother had to buy Sandringham and Balmoral off him because they were personal property. He did not have to buy the crown estates, as they went with the "job".

If the crown estates were private property, they would belong to the Jacobite heir - whoever that is. But they're not so they don't.

One of the Georges swapped the crown estates for an annuity because he was broke. Since then Parliament has made a better job of managing the estates than the royals ever did and consequently is in profit. Good for Parliament.

NB, if you go way back to when Kings were Kings, they were expected to "live of their own" except in times of war, when there could be taxes to pay for the extra cost of war. In other words, anciently, the crown estates paid not just for the court, but also for defence, justice, prisons, diplomacy and all the other "basic" services. We could of course go back to this and just have taxes for new things like the NHS, education, social services, pensions and so on that the medieval kings didn't fund.
 
Have you ever met a poor farmer?
4439505771_52dcdb68a4.jpg
 
The crown estates ultimately belong to the state. This is easily demonstrated. When James II was kicked off the throne in 1688 - by Parliament! - he did not retain the crown estates. They were transferred to the king appointed by Parliament, William III.
Last sentence, end of story.

Transferred to and then owned by the Crown. The erm clue is in the name.
 
When Edward VIII abdicated, his brother had to buy Sandringham and Balmoral off him because they were personal property. He did not have to buy the crown estates, as they went with the "job".

No one says it's the Queen's or the Monarchs. Everyone in this thread have said either the Crown's or the Monarchy's.

Since then Parliament has made a better job of managing the estates than the royals ever did and consequently is in profit. Good for Parliament.

Yes I'm sure they wouldn't earn a penny now given the low cost of real estate in London.
 
George started school today, big deal you say but have you seen his teacher, wwaaahheeeey
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.