[122025278]

The Civil List, OK here's my idea. Let the Queen keep the profits from the Crown Estate, whetever that amounts to, £160m, infact don't even tax her on income, capital gains or inheritance.

Then we won't need to pay her £40m any more. It does make you wonder why this arrangement isn't in place already IF that £160m is HERS what's the point in us taking it all then giving £40m back? Let her pay for herself with her own money, unless the assumpion is that it is NOT her money (which of course it is).

There is a small snag though... The Civil List was in exchange for amongst other things, Parliament funding the civil government and not the Crown. So if we cancel the Civil List agreement and she accepts, the surely she will be liable for the costs of government again, which, at current prices is BILLIONS. Put it this way, even if you liquidated all of the assets which are part of the Crown Estate, that would cover only a few days the costs of government.

So if the Crown Estate IS her personal property, let her keep it, pay no Civil List (since it's unnecessary) and let her be liable for the costs of government and go bankrupt almost instantly. Simple.

[subjectman10]

aha a fellow leicestershire dude...

[122025278]

(Original post by subjectman10)
aha a fellow leicestershire dude...

Market Harborough, former Leicestershire now.

[Arbolus]

You're forgetting that if she was personally responsible for all government expenses then she'd also be the recipient of all government income, including taxes.

[MagicNMedicine]

I'd love to see how the bailiffs dealt with HM Armed Forces.

[Norton1]

My strategy to bankrupt the Queen would be what I always do to rich old people; turn up and charge her 80 quid to 'tidy up her trees a bit'. Repeat the process until she gets wise to me.

As she has a bigger than average garden I predict I could become one of the richest people in the country pretty quickly.

[122025278]

(Original post by Arbolus)
You're forgetting that if she was personally responsible for all government expenses then she'd also be the recipient of all government income, including taxes.

What? lol. If that was ever the case there would never have been a problem in the first place? Think about it, why would they have entered into the current agreement in the first place (when they couldn't afford to pay for things any longer) and ask Parliament to effectively bail them out and do a deal?

If they had control over taxation they'd have just used that to cover the shortfall but instead they had to go to Parliament and ask them to appropriate the money. It's basic logic never mind history.

Back then government was so small compared to what is is today and wealth inequality was huge which meant that labour and resources were relatively cheap compared to today, they were able to afford it, now though, it'd be impossible.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by 122025278)
What? lol. If that was ever the case there would never have been a problem in the first place? Think about it, why would they have entered into the current agreement in the first place (when they couldn't afford to pay for things any longer) and ask Parliament to effectively bail them out and do a deal?

If they had control over taxation they'd have just used that to cover the shortfall but instead they had to go to Parliament and ask them to appropriate the money. It's basic logic never mind history.

Back then government was so small compared to what is is today and wealth inequality was huge which meant that labour and resources were relatively cheap compared to today, they were able to afford it, now though, it'd be impossible.

Please note that the government as run by parliament is currently borrowing many billions of pounds per year, and also, if you want the queen to pay for the government of the country, you can expect her to play a much more active role in deciding what is done. This would not be the way to get a republic, but rather an absolute monarchy.

[122025278]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Please note that the government as run by parliament is currently borrowing many billions of pounds per year, and also, if you want the queen to pay for the government of the country, you can expect her to play a much more active role in deciding what is done. This would not be the way to get a republic, but rather an absolute monarchy.

"You can expect her to play a much more active role in deciding what is done" Another opinion not fact. Read the Civil List Act 1837 and any subsequent acts, you can look at them on legislation.gov.uk and get the original in a .pdf format or alternatively look at the Crown Estate's website, they summarise the agreement nicely.

You do realise that at the time when they were using the Crown Estate to fund the civil government, we still had Parliamentary democracy with a Cabinet? The Monarch wasn't some autocrat, so what on earth makes you think that's what we would revert to lol.

Plus the Crown Estate is already being paid to the Treasury to help fund the costs of government, before the agreement in 1760, the Crown Estate was STILL being used to fund the costs of government, it's just the costs became so huge it wasn't enough to cover it so Parliament had to pick up the bill. All that happened was a reallocation of state funds, it wasn't at any time coming out of the Monarchs own pocket. Why do you think they were given the Crown Estate in the first place, to fund the costs of government at a time when taxes were non existant or pitifully small. What your suggesting is nonsense lol.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by 122025278)
You do realise that at the time when they were using the Crown Estate to fund the civil government, we still had Parliamentary democracy with a Cabinet?

Well, in a sense. Franchise was restricted to rich men, there was no secret ballot, and power was still concentrated in the Lords and aristocracy.

[122025278]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Well, in a sense. Franchise was restricted to rich men, there was no secret ballot, and power was still concentrated in the Lords and aristocracy.

I know I know, the Commons represented anyone but and the Lords were the most dominant chamber no doubt. But what I'm saying is that even that refutes the idea that the monarch was some autocrat.

[apolocreed]

Why do people hate the monarchy...you realise what you want to do will lead to things such as disorder and riots...right? The Queen is a figurehead and unites britain in ways a federal government can only dream off. If you hate her so much give up your passport and leave...and as someone stated, she would be eligible to receive all taxes, so if we now take that fact which you missed into account the queen would have all of Britain's tax money, and if anyone acts up she might as well tell the armed forces to take care of it seeing as she'll pay them...actually your idea to bankrupt her just puts her in full control of everything now


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

[122025278]

(Original post by apolocreed)
Why do people hate the monarchy...you realise what you want to do will lead to things such as disorder and riots...right? The Queen is a figurehead and unites britain in ways a federal government can only dream off. If you hate her so much give up your passport and leave...and as someone stated, she would be eligible to receive all taxes, so if we now take that fact which you missed into account the queen would have all of Britain's tax money, and if anyone acts up she might as well tell the armed forces to take care of it seeing as she'll pay them...actually your idea to bankrupt her just puts her in full control of everything now


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

I've just deleted what I was about to write, lets make it simple for you...

If the agreement is cancelled, you say that the monarch would be eligible for all taxes (apart from the fact that the Civil List Act 1837 and subsequent legislation doesn't mention of a word of this and it would be illegal anyway plus it would be totally unconstitutional, we'd have an executive monarch and it goes against everything since the civil war and flys in the face of the Bill of Rights).

Think about this for a second, if the agreement is cancelled, the monarch receives all taxes you say. If that's the case (which it isn't) why in the first place would the agreement have been made lol. Parliament were just paying off the debt and funding the government with taxes, but you imply that the monarch would have had control of taxes when they were responsible for the costs of government, which is a complete contradiction! Think about that for a second and realise what an imbecile you sound lol

[Nick100]

Actually the Queen's assets could only run the government for a few hours - not a few days.

[apolocreed]

(Original post by 122025278)
I've just deleted what I was about to write, lets make it simple for you...

If the agreement is cancelled, you say that the monarch would be eligible for all taxes (apart from the fact that the Civil List Act 1837 and subsequent legislation doesn't mention of a word of this and it would be illegal anyway plus it would be totally unconstitutional, we'd have an executive monarch and it goes against everything since the civil war and flys in the face of the Bill of Rights).

Think about this for a second, if the agreement is cancelled, the monarch receives all taxes you say. If that's the case (which it isn't) why in the first place would the agreement have been made lol. Parliament were just paying off the debt and funding the government with taxes, but you imply that the monarch would have had control of taxes when they were responsible for the costs of government, which is a complete contradiction! Think about that for a second and realise what an imbecile you sound lol

No need to make it simple for me
Unfortunately you come across as some guy who probably finished off an essay on this a few hours ago and feels he can single handedly bring down the monarchy...and for that you come off as an imbecile
All I know about this subject is a 3 minute video so I'll applaud you for managing to get one on me, however what you missed is the fact the monarch doesn't have to give their assets to the government...they decide to. They could take them back and leave the uk with quite a bit less on the assets front. Sure I may have got a few things wrong, but that's the way the world works...and it would probably be a bleaker one for Britain if your little theory backed up by a few facts from bbc bitesize ever see's the light of day

[122025278]

(Original post by apolocreed)
No need to make it simple for me
Unfortunately you come across as some guy who probably finished off an essay on this a few hours ago and feels he can single handedly bring down the monarchy...and for that you come off as an imbecile
All I know about this subject is a 3 minute video so I'll applaud you for managing to get one on me, however what you missed is the fact the monarch doesn't have to give their assets to the government...they decide to. They could take them back and leave the uk with quite a bit less on the assets front. Sure I may have got a few things wrong, but that's the way the world works...and it would probably be a bleaker one for Britain if your little theory backed up by a few facts from bbc bitesize ever see's the light of day

They don't give any of their assets to the government what are you on about lol.

I'll be kind to you and assume you're talking about revenue from the Crown Estate?

The Crown Estate isn't Elizabeth Windsor's, it's the Queen's, or Elizabeth Windsor in her capacity as sovereign. She could take the revenues from them back of course, but that would renege on the agreement which they are surrendered in exchange for Parliament picking up the tab for funding the government, so the monarch would then have to fund that, which they simply couldn't as the costs nowadays are astronomical, even if they sold everything in the portfolio of the Crown Estate, that'd barely cover a week I think.

If she left the UK and abdicated, she would lose all entitlement to revenue from the Crown Estate, they aren't Elizabeth Windsor's, they belong to the crown hence the name. Nothing would change, the revenues from them would still be paid to the treasury.

PS a little extra, this is from the Crown Estate themself, feel free to confirm it, my account may not be as accurate as mine was off the top of my head:

"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."

[apolocreed]

(Original post by 122025278)
They don't give any of their assets to the government what are you on about lol.

I'll be kind to you and assume you're talking about revenue from the Crown Estate?

The Crown Estate isn't Elizabeth Windsor's, it's the Queen's, or Elizabeth Windsor in her capacity as sovereign. She could take the revenues from them back of course, but that would renege on the agreement which they are surrendered in exchange for Parliament picking up the tab for funding the government, so the monarch would then have to fund that, which they simply couldn't as the costs nowadays are astronomical, even if they sold everything in the portfolio of the Crown Estate, that'd barely cover a week I think.

If she left the UK and abdicated, she would lose all entitlement to revenue from the Crown Estate, they aren't Elizabeth Windsor's, they belong to the crown hence the name. Nothing would change, the revenues from them would still be paid to the treasury.

PS a little extra, this is from the Crown Estate themself, feel free to confirm it, my account may not be as accurate as mine was off the top of my head:

"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."

I'll be brutally honest...you just managed to win an argument against a 16 year old with little to no knowledge on the subject at hand.

[s]awesome[

But I'm still holding my ground on the fact that if you don't like it...leave.

[122025278]

You don't need to tell me you have little to no knowledge on the subject at hand, that's strikingly obvious. In future, it's probably better to be safe than sorry.

If you don't like it leave? If I don't like what exactly? See you don't even understand the OP lol

I also don't understand the "If you don't like it leave" advice, you're not a fan of democracy then are you. There are some interesting times in history when your advice would have been most useful. Your advice to African Americans during segregation, if you don't like it ****ing leave! Aparteid South Africa, if you don't like it, leave! Suffragettes campaigning for women to get the vote, if you don't like it leave! Jews in Germany, leave!