Why does the monarch own all the land in Britain?
Why is it socially acceptable that one person, the monarch, is the sole owner of Britain, surely the British should own it?
Scroll to see replies
The Queen is the 'Head of State' which, ever since there's been a parliament, means that she's not so much the owner or even manager of the UK as a figurehead of the UK. She does own royal estates and land but, in practice, she doesn't really own the rest of the land other than in a symbolic sense.
If our modern Royal Family were despots then there'd probably be a fuss but no major political parties have meaningfully expressed a desire for the monarchy to be disbanded.
They don't cost much per person in the UK per year and they undoubtedly will help tourism too. They probably make the UK more money, and supply more emotional and inspirational benefit, than they cost.
If a prime minister went absolutely mad and yet his own party backed him and an ineffective or complicit opposition didn't oppose him, then the existence of a benevolent monarchy might be very useful indeed too. In fact, her example might have repercussions within how parliament itself conducts itself. Without our particular rather benevolent monarchy, our elected parliament itself might become less benevolent.
So, in a strange way, having a benevolent monarchy might make us a more truly socialistic country in a cultural sense (where we care for our neighbours, our community, we care for industries that actually make more than just money as a meaningful part of existence), if not a political one.
If our modern Royal Family were despots then there'd probably be a fuss but no major political parties have meaningfully expressed a desire for the monarchy to be disbanded.
They don't cost much per person in the UK per year and they undoubtedly will help tourism too. They probably make the UK more money, and supply more emotional and inspirational benefit, than they cost.
If a prime minister went absolutely mad and yet his own party backed him and an ineffective or complicit opposition didn't oppose him, then the existence of a benevolent monarchy might be very useful indeed too. In fact, her example might have repercussions within how parliament itself conducts itself. Without our particular rather benevolent monarchy, our elected parliament itself might become less benevolent.
So, in a strange way, having a benevolent monarchy might make us a more truly socialistic country in a cultural sense (where we care for our neighbours, our community, we care for industries that actually make more than just money as a meaningful part of existence), if not a political one.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by Picnic1
So, in a strange way, having a benevolent monarchy might make us a more truly socialistic country in a cultural sense (where we care for our neighbours, our community, we care for industries that actually make more than just money as a meaningful part of existence), if not a political one.
Really? Where do the likes of Philip Green come into this idea of mobarch induced virtuousness? Didn't Thatcher famously also say "There is no such thing as society"?
The monarch is the absolute owner of land in the UK all others hold an estate in land. Estates took many forms in the past but were reduced to two by the Law of Property Act 1925; a) an estate in fee simple absolute in possession, generally known as freehold and b) an estate for a number of years absolute, generally known as leasehold. The preamble to the Land Registration Act 2002 states, ' The concepts of leasehold and freehold derive from medieval forms of tenure and are not ownership' in relation to land in the UK we are all tenants on the basis of the feudal superiority of the Crown created in 1066 and supported by legal norms formulated to uphold that feudal superiority. In February 2009 Bridget Prentice, a parliamentary undersecretary at the Ministry of Justice replied to a question from an MP, 'The Crown [whoever wears it] is the ultimate owner of all land in England and Wales (including the Isles of Scilly); all other 'owners' hold an estate in land.' My question is why is it socially acceptable in a country that is supposed to believe in equality of opportunity that property law is founded on the supposition that one person owns all of it. Surely in a supposedly democratic State the nation should own it, why not?
Original post by Picnic1
The Queen is the 'Head of State' which, ever since there's been a parliament, means that she's not so much the owner or even manager of the UK as a figurehead of the UK. She does own royal estates and land but, in practice, she doesn't really own the rest of the land other than in a symbolic sense.
If our modern Royal Family were despots then there'd probably be a fuss but no major political parties have meaningfully expressed a desire for the monarchy to be disbanded.
They don't cost much per person in the UK per year and they undoubtedly will help tourism too. They probably make the UK more money, and supply more emotional and inspirational benefit, than they cost.
If a prime minister went absolutely mad and yet his own party backed him and an ineffective or complicit opposition didn't oppose him, then the existence of a benevolent monarchy might be very useful indeed too. In fact, her example might have repercussions within how parliament itself conducts itself. Without our particular rather benevolent monarchy, our elected parliament itself might become less benevolent.
So, in a strange way, having a benevolent monarchy might make us a more truly socialistic country in a cultural sense (where we care for our neighbours, our community, we care for industries that actually make more than just money as a meaningful part of existence), if not a political one.
If our modern Royal Family were despots then there'd probably be a fuss but no major political parties have meaningfully expressed a desire for the monarchy to be disbanded.
They don't cost much per person in the UK per year and they undoubtedly will help tourism too. They probably make the UK more money, and supply more emotional and inspirational benefit, than they cost.
If a prime minister went absolutely mad and yet his own party backed him and an ineffective or complicit opposition didn't oppose him, then the existence of a benevolent monarchy might be very useful indeed too. In fact, her example might have repercussions within how parliament itself conducts itself. Without our particular rather benevolent monarchy, our elected parliament itself might become less benevolent.
So, in a strange way, having a benevolent monarchy might make us a more truly socialistic country in a cultural sense (where we care for our neighbours, our community, we care for industries that actually make more than just money as a meaningful part of existence), if not a political one.
The Monarchy is unelected and an outdated institution which no longer represents the majority of Britons. It’s time this institution which has been feeding of taxpayers money was abolished and replaced with an elected head of state or the PM takes the duties of the monarchy. We have 100’s of 1000’s of people In poverty with 1 in 200 people in the UK either in temporary accommodation or homeless yet we spend millions a year on a single family so they can live lavishly. Before anyone uses the tourism argument according to visit Britain the monarchy brings in a fraction in tourism compared to what it costs us . It’s time the UK entered the 21st century and follow the suit of many other developed countries and abolish the monarchy.
Original post by yaseen1000
The Monarchy is unelected and an outdated institution which no longer represents the majority of Britons. It’s time this institution which has been feeding of taxpayers money was abolished and replaced with an elected head of state or the PM takes the duties of the monarchy. We have 100’s of 1000’s of people In poverty with 1 in 200 people in the UK either in temporary accommodation or homeless yet we spend millions a year on a single family so they can live lavishly. Before anyone uses the tourism argument according to visit Britain the monarchy brings in a fraction in tourism compared to what it costs us . It’s time the UK entered the 21st century and follow the suit of many other developed countries and abolish the monarchy.
Where's a link to that Visit Britain claim? As i can't find one.
Also, if you want to truly enter the 21st Century, you're probably looking at robots taking over all but the most manual or rarefied of jobs.
Political consequences always have cultural consequences.
Whether the population stick with a hereditary head of state is a matter for them as is the acceptance or rejection of the proposition that all individuals who are nationals, the nation, should own it as a birthright. The proposition does not require the hereditary family to forgo their traditional privilege of supplying a head of state it does however introduce the the notion of individual nationals being property owners in their own right which would require those who exclude them from their property to cough up a financial consideration for doing so.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by landscape2014
The monarch is the absolute owner of land in the UK all others hold an estate in land. Estates took many forms in the past but were reduced to two by the Law of Property Act 1925; a) an estate in fee simple absolute in possession, generally known as freehold and b) an estate for a number of years absolute, generally known as leasehold. The preamble to the Land Registration Act 2002 states, ' The concepts of leasehold and freehold derive from medieval forms of tenure and are not ownership' in relation to land in the UK we are all tenants on the basis of the feudal superiority of the Crown created in 1066 and supported by legal norms formulated to uphold that feudal superiority. In February 2009 Bridget Prentice, a parliamentary undersecretary at the Ministry of Justice replied to a question from an MP, 'The Crown [whoever wears it] is the ultimate owner of all land in England and Wales (including the Isles of Scilly); all other 'owners' hold an estate in land.' My question is why is it socially acceptable in a country that is supposed to believe in equality of opportunity that property law is founded on the supposition that one person owns all of it. Surely in a supposedly democratic State the nation should own it, why not?
Does the phrase 'more honoured in the breach than in the observance' mean nothing to you?
Original post by yaseen1000
The Monarchy is unelected and an outdated institution which no longer represents the majority of Britons.
Please dont present your opinion as a fact.
It’s time this institution which has been feeding of taxpayers money
You do know that the Royal family is a net contributer to the exchequer in terms of taxes paid from the Duchy and in terms of tourist revenue right?
was abolished and replaced with an elected head of state or the PM takes the duties of the monarchy.
Yeah because our racent PMs have really covered themselves in glory
We have 100’s of 1000’s of people In poverty with 1 in 200 people in the UK either in temporary accommodation or homeless yet we spend millions a year on a single family so they can live lavishly.
You seem to be confusing a problem caused by our elected representitives (ironic considering your previous remark) with a problem not caused by the Royals.
Before anyone uses the tourism argument according to visit Britain the monarchy brings in a fraction in tourism compared to what it costs us .
By all means provide a link to back up that deeply spurious claim
It’s time the UK entered the 21st century and follow the suit of many other developed countries and abolish the monarchy.
You do know most of Europe and the a fair whack of the commonwealth have various royals right...?
Original post by Napp
Does the phrase 'more honoured in the breach than in the observance' mean nothing to you?
The question is why is it socially acceptable in a country that is supposed to believe in equality of opportunity that property law is founded on the supposition that one person owns all of it. Surely in a supposedly democratic State the nation should own it, why not?
Original post by landscape2014
The question is why is it socially acceptable in a country that is supposed to believe in equality of opportunity that property law is founded on the supposition that one person owns all of it. Surely in a supposedly democratic State the nation should own it, why not?
Because this isn’t communist China...
Original post by yaseen1000
The Monarchy is unelected and an outdated institution which no longer represents the majority of Britons. It’s time this institution which has been feeding of taxpayers money was abolished and replaced with an elected head of state or the PM takes the duties of the monarchy. We have 100’s of 1000’s of people In poverty with 1 in 200 people in the UK either in temporary accommodation or homeless yet we spend millions a year on a single family so they can live lavishly. Before anyone uses the tourism argument according to visit Britain the monarchy brings in a fraction in tourism compared to what it costs us . It’s time the UK entered the 21st century and follow the suit of many other developed countries and abolish the monarchy.
Please link us to the visit britain source you are using.
Original post by Picnic1
Where's a link to that Visit Britain claim? As i can't find one.
Also, if you want to truly enter the 21st Century, you're probably looking at robots taking over all but the most manual or rarefied of jobs.
Political consequences always have cultural consequences.
Also, if you want to truly enter the 21st Century, you're probably looking at robots taking over all but the most manual or rarefied of jobs.
Political consequences always have cultural consequences.
Original post by yaseen1000
The Monarchy is unelected and an outdated institution which no longer represents the majority of Britons. It’s time this institution which has been feeding of taxpayers money was abolished and replaced with an elected head of state or the PM takes the duties of the monarchy. We have 100’s of 1000’s of people In poverty with 1 in 200 people in the UK either in temporary accommodation or homeless yet we spend millions a year on a single family so they can live lavishly. Before anyone uses the tourism argument according to visit Britain the monarchy brings in a fraction in tourism compared to what it costs us . It’s time the UK entered the 21st century and follow the suit of many other developed countries and abolish the monarchy.
You do realise that the royal estate, all the land and property owned by the crown, makes more money for the UK than we pay them. The government gets the crown revenue and actually gives a tax rebate to the tax payer as a result. Do your research you absolute dongs.
Original post by 999tigger
Please link us to the visit britain source you are using.
https://www.republic.org.uk/what-we-do/news-and-updates/exclusive-no-royal-tourism-evidence-found-visitbritain
According the FOI Visit Britain was unable to provide evidence that the existence of a monarchy boosted tourism in the Uk
(edited 5 years ago)
I really love the Royal family, but I just find it slightly hypocritical how much the Duchess of Sussex spent on her 2 wedding dresses
Original post by AmmarTa
You do realise that the royal estate, all the land and property owned by the crown, makes more money for the UK than we pay them. The government gets the crown revenue and actually gives a tax rebate to the tax payer as a result. Do your research you absolute dongs.
Hear hear!
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by yaseen1000
https://www.republic.org.uk/what-we-do/news-and-updates/exclusive-no-royal-tourism-evidence-found-visitbritain
According the FOI Visit Britain was unable to provide evidence that the existence of a monarchy boosted tourism in the Uk
According the FOI Visit Britain was unable to provide evidence that the existence of a monarchy boosted tourism in the Uk
That would be why you see tourists swarming Buckingham Palace,Kensington, Windsor, the Tower etc.
That would be why you see all the memorabilia that doesnt sell.
https://fullfact.org/economy/royal-family-what-are-costs-and-benefits/
Original post by SlightlySummer
I really love the Royal family, but I just find it slightly hypocritical how much the Duchess of Sussex spent on her 2 wedding dresses
I believe they become investments and historical items, so in the longer run they will make a profit.
Original post by landscape2014
Why is it socially acceptable that one person, the monarch, is the sole owner of Britain, surely the British should own it?
As has been very well explained to you, you need to look at the Queen as being head of/ equivalent to the state.
If you then turn that back into why should the UK state be the sole ultimate owner of land it starts to make more sense.
Original post by Napp
Because this isn’t communist China...
Correct, the State own it not the people here the Monarch owns it not the people.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 weeks ago
An academic has correctly called 9 out of the last 10 US Presidential electionsLast reply 1 month ago
University Tuition Fees to rise in England for the first time in 8 yearsLast reply 1 month ago
Achieved top grades (3 A*) at school, but not sure uni is right for me
