[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by JPKC)
The Crown Estate belongs to the Crown. Elizabeth Windsor would have to legal entitlement to them were she not to have the authority of the Crown. End of. By all means ignore the facts if you want. The civil list agreement is a deal whereby the Crown lets Parliament run the Estate in exchange for a grant, letting them keep the revenue. Nothing more more complicated than that.

Once again completely ignore everything I write and attempt to debate something I am not arguing. The Crown Estate comprises land that was once personal property of George III, Elizabeth II's great, great, great, great grandfather. She has a greater claim over the land than the Government, to which the land does not belong. Arguing the land does not belong to the Monarch does not substantiate your claim that the land belongs to the government.

[JPKC]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Once again completely ignore everything I write and attempt to debate something I am not arguing. The Crown Estate comprises land that was once personal property of George III, Elizabeth II's great, great, great, great grandfather. She has a greater claim over the land than the Government, to which the land does not belong. Arguing the land does not belong to the Monarch does not substantiate your claim that the land belongs to the government.

Once again say something historically incorrect and throw a hissy fit when I try to correct you. The Crown Estate has never been the personal property of anyone. It has and always will belong to the person who is monarch, only in their capacity as monarch. The Crown is a part of government and you need to learn to differentiate between the person of the monarch and the monarch as a constitutional, governmental, legal position.

Even is your fib was factually correct, it's a weak argument to say "we should keep the monarchy because it's cheaper".

[hurricanado]

If people 'laugh' at the UK for having a monarch, then they also laugh at a lot of countries. Here is just a few...

Belgium
The Netherlands
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Japan

Hardly a list of downtrodden and undemocratic country's it it?

[When you see it...]

(Original post by multiplexing-gamer)
[*]It brings pride to our nation

I stopped reading here.

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by hurricanado)
If people 'laugh' at the UK for having a monarch, then they also laugh at a lot of countries. Here is just a few...

Belgium
The Netherlands
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Japan

Hardly a list of downtrodden and undemocratic country's it it?

Ireland, Germany, The USA, France... Neither are they downtrodden and undemocratic. Frankly, between the two lists, I know whose company I'd prefer to be in as well!!


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by JPKC)
Once again say something historically incorrect and throw a hissy fit when I try to correct you. The Crown Estate has never been the personal property of anyone. It has and always will belong to the person who is monarch, only in their capacity as monarch. The Crown is a part of government and you need to learn to differentiate between the person of the monarch and the monarch as a constitutional, governmental, legal position.

Even is your fib was factually correct, it's a weak argument to say "we should keep the monarchy because it's cheaper".

Oh deary me. The current legal status of the Crown Estate was only established through Acts of Parliament in 1955 and 1961. Going back to George III, the status of the Crown Lands were that they were personal property of the Monarch. They ran them as they pleased and were not bound by any legislation or rules, because it was their personal property.
You need to learn to read properly, because I have never once said that the Crown Estate is personal property of the current Monarch. Being the direct ancestor of George III, Elizabeth II would have a claim at least part of the Crown Estate, so your claim that the Government naturally would inherit the profits is false.

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Oh deary me. The current legal status of the Crown Estate was only established through Acts of Parliament in 1955 and 1961. Going back to George III, the status of the Crown Lands were that they were personal property of the Monarch. They ran them as they pleased and were not bound by any legislation or rules, because it was their personal property.
You need to learn to read properly, because I have never once said that the Crown Estate is personal property of the current Monarch. Being the direct ancestor of George III, Elizabeth II would have a claim at least part of the Crown Estate, so your claim that the Government naturally would inherit the profits is false.

Liz would not get a single penny from the Crown Estates, simply because they are not her property. There was no trade between Crown and Government, The Crown was The Government until Parliament came sovereign. Then the Government came from Parliament, the Estates still being the property of the Government. It was a simple transfer of assets from one branch to the other.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[hurricanado]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
Ireland, Germany, The USA, France... Neither are they downtrodden and undemocratic. Frankly, between the two lists, I know whose company I'd prefer to be in as well!!


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

I do believe that all the country's on that list are "full democracy's". France is a flawed democracy. I wonder whether you know that the powers of France's president came from the threat of a military coup in the early 1950's? Very democratic that.

Norway is the most democratic country on this earth. Denmark is the 3rd. Sweden is the 4th. All constitutional monarchy's. Many of the modern constitutional monarchy's, including the UK, have been described as 'crowned republics'.

[kaleidoscopeeyes]

country's

*countries

democracy's

*democracies

monarchy's

*monarchies

Oh, and France being a flawed democracy is related to what, exactly? Last time I checked our version of it wasn't exactly perfect.

[hurricanado]

(Original post by kaleidoscopeeyes)
*countries



*democracies



*monarchies

Oh, and France being a flawed democracy is related to what, exactly? Last time I checked our version of it wasn't exactly perfect.

I'll ignore your personal attacks. The 'Flawed democracy' is because of the power held by the President of France. Look it up, as it is rather a lengthy list.

[kaleidoscopeeyes]

Sorry, that was unfair, I'm just a bit of a Nazi when it comes to apostrophes.

And I'm sure there are issues with the President of France - it's not a system I'd personally wish to copy - but my point was that there is no such thing as a perfect system, and anyone who think there is is deluding themselves. There are plenty of unpleasant monarchies, in the same way there are plenty of unpleasant presidencies.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
Liz would not get a single penny from the Crown Estates, simply because they are not her property. There was no trade between Crown and Government, The Crown was The Government until Parliament came sovereign. Then the Government came from Parliament, the Estates still being the property of the Government. It was a simple transfer of assets from one branch to the other.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Once again, I have never said the Crown Estate is her property. I said that current lands in the Crown Estate were once personal property of her ancestors, long before the Crown Estate became a corporation sole and current legislation concerning the Crown was passed. She can therefore stake a claim to the land and there is no basis for your complete unwaivering assumption that the lands belong to the government. There is no current legislation concerning this matter, and if the UK did become a republic there'd be a mother load of legal wranglings of which nobody can predict the outcome of, so stop pretending as if you can.

[chriswalker]

how retarded is this thread... arguing over the most ridiculous, irrelevant things.

the fact is there is zero public support for abolishing the monarchy, aside from those spotty online nerds banging on about democracy, and left wing wasters who need a 'cause'

if you try to suggest there is an appetite amongst ordinary people for abolishing the monarchy i think you'll find you are severely mistaken. this is clearly demonstrated when republicans get off their computers and actually get onto the streets to 'protest'. invariably these events attract either zero attendance from the public, or general abuse for their annoying, aloof 'OMG DEMOCRACY' manner of protest. this is probably the most annoying thing about republicans. they are generally thick but present themselves as intellectuals, and cannot debate but rather preach.

republicans, get off your high horses and get a life. if you are so really concerned about social mobility, work hard, become an MP, and change the system. dont sit around on internet forums for days on end lecturing people about democracy.

[multiplexing-gamer]

(Original post by When you see it...)
I stopped reading here.

Ok?

[kaleidoscopeeyes]

how retarded is this thread... arguing over the most ridiculous, irrelevant things.

the fact is there is zero public support for abolishing the monarchy, aside from those spotty online nerds banging on about democracy, and left wing wasters who need a 'cause'

if you try to suggest there is an appetite amongst ordinary people for abolishing the monarchy i think you'll find you are severely mistaken. this is clearly demonstrated when republicans get off their computers and actually get onto the streets to 'protest'. invariably these events attract either zero attendance from the public, or general abuse for their annoying, aloof 'OMG DEMOCRACY' manner of protest. this is probably the most annoying thing about republicans. they are generally thick but present themselves as intellectuals, and cannot debate but rather preach.

republicans, get off your high horses and get a life. if you are so really concerned about social mobility, work hard, become an MP, and change the system. dont sit around on internet forums for days on end lecturing people about democracy.

Do you have anything constructive to say or was that it?

[Mr Disco]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
They aren't above the law, nor do they break it. They do not legally have to pay inheritance tax.

So it's one law for them, and a different law for everybody else.

Seems reasonable.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
I said that current lands in the Crown Estate were once personal property of her ancestors

Which would be wrong. At least, not at the point at which it was relevant. The lands were the property of the monarch, not of the person of the monarch. If it had been the latter, it would not automatically become the property of the new monarch as it did.

That said, as I've pointed out many times, we're talking about feudal land rights obtained through right of conquest here; I don't see what obliges us to respect that.

[L i b]

(Original post by JPKC)
Again, wrong, don't believe everything some bloke says on YouTube. The Crown Estates belong to the Crown - the monarch. They are not the personal assets of the person who is monarch. That's why Balmoral isn't a part of the Crown Estates. The flat in 10 Downing Street belongs to the prime minister - that does not mean it is the private property of David Cameron.

It is completely without legal merit to try to divide the assets of the Crown as an entity and those of Elizabeth II as a person. The two are intertwined.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by Mr Disco)
So it's one law for them, and a different law for everybody else.

Seems reasonable.

The Duchies are held in trusts and are not the personal property of the incumbent Dukes. They are used solely to pay for the expenses related to duties carried out in the capacity as Duke. Why on earth would should they personally pay inheritance tax? It's not a different law, it's the same for all corporation soles. The Royal Mail is legally owned by the Business Secretary, should Vince Cable have to pay taxes related to it?

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Mr Disco)
So it's one law for them, and a different law for everybody else.

Seems reasonable.

There is a reason Dieu Et Mon Droit is in every court..