-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Queen Elizabeth lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth
- Thread starter It’s Time To Go
- Start date
Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent
Exclusive: secretive procedure used to review laws ranging from Brexit trade deal to inheritance and land policy
www.theguardian.com
Just a joke at this point, it's amazing how people defend this nonsense.
Ethnic minorities, the LGBTQ+ community and all other marginalised groups in the UK.
OP
OP
Have you seen the telegraph? The EU isn't going away as a bogeyman any time soon.
It's so absurd to me that this is even a thing in todays world.
Monarchy should definately be killed off. It's a stupid tradition that should have died ages ago.
The Guardian has been going hard on this for the past few days. I fucking despise the fact that taxpayers paid for stuff like a new roof on the palace and now this. None of the royals are fit for purpose
Spanish royalty stealing money and getting into sex troubles is the only constant thing among all our kings.
We're the country that voted for nostalgic sovereignty and sunlit uplands at the expense of any and all logic. The poll would be a wash unfortunately.
Exactly this. I hang out in the UK politics subreddit and it's fairly liberal. And even they were outraged at Nicola Sturgeon because she criticized William and Kate going to Scotland to boost morale during a pandemic. Like, somehow Royals boosting morale was essential during a pandemic and Sturgeon was in the wrong to criticize that. Took me aback. And has me baffled.
Well, the previous king is a poacher who routinely got bribes from Saudi kings (and who knows who else), killed his own brother and was appointed by a bloody dictator. Also it's more than probable he had a hand in the 81 coup but got cold feet. Money laundering is arguably the least of their problems.
And that's mild compared to our history of Bourbon monarchs. We spaniards are a stupid breed.
She wants to hide the personal wealth that is funded by taxpayers? I seriously hate the royal family and everything about it
I see, this tend to be a common problem with monarchies
Spanish former king Juan Carlos I pays thousands in tax debt | News | DW | 09.12.2020
Spanish former king Juan Carlos I pays thousands in tax debt | News | DW | 09.12.2020
The government does their own thing, but the queen's authority is carried by the Governor General, a largely ceremonial role that is nominated by the government but approved by the monarch. So Trudeau nominates one, Queen says yes, there you go. They technically have some powers but I'm not sure they have ever been used in Canada, and by law the Canadian government is completely severed from British Parliament. Nonetheless, while the PM is the head of the government, the Queen is the head of state, and that's why you see her on money.
The office of GG is currently absent.
You could say the existence of the link to the crown is both tradition - arguably the oldest english tradition of the country - and a political truce. The cost to further defang the monarchy in the country - both financial and political - simply isn't worth the firestorm it would cause relative to the yearly cost of supporting the crown. As long as the crown forever holds their silence in acts of government it seems unlikely anyone would go to the trouble of redoing the laws and removing them entirely.
See that's fine in theory at least, and you're certainly correct that the Queen is overwhelmingly popular in the country, to the point that anyone proposing getting rid of her is not going to get into power. (Charles is a different matter, but whatever.)
Where this gets exceedingly uncomfortable is the idea of Queen's Consent extending to protecting the Queen's private financial interests. It's one thing to talk to her if you're changing up what the Royal Prerogative does, or impacts her public powers, it's quite another to give her the heads up when there's legislation that might impact her wealth. No one else gets that, no one else gets the chance to be consulted on legislation that affect their private interests.
On top of that, the idea of Queen's Consent has no legal basis whatsoever. There's no piece of legislation defining when it applies, it just appears in the Parliamentary rule books with no basis in law at all, asserting that it's 'required' for a wide range of legislation.
We're left with the reality that the Queen has used this 'requirement' for consent to influence legislation passed by our democratically elected legislature, while she sat on her hands when her appointed executive suspended Parliament, arguing that they could do this at any time for any length of time. Which is a seriously bad look.
This is crying out for serious reform. At the absolute minimum it needs restricting to only coming up when changes are made to the Royal Prerogative, but really that whole thing should be scrapped anyway in favour of root and branch constitutional reform.
Last edited:
What would you call the United Kingdom if there were in fact no kings or queens? England and Pals?
Not cool, The Queen. Not cool. I don't begrudge her the wealth - it's on the government to tax the rich, it's not on the rich themselves - and she brings more money into the country than she takes, but the Harry and Megan solution is the future. What a couple of rockstars.
What amazes me most about the royal family is their obscene longevity. How do they live to become walking ghosts? How are they so free from the ailments of advanced age? Is it really all down to swan consumption?
What amazes me most about the royal family is their obscene longevity. How do they live to become walking ghosts? How are they so free from the ailments of advanced age? Is it really all down to swan consumption?
I've been a couple of times for investitures. It was kinda underwhelming (at least the parts where scum like me were permitted).
And, whilst all the staff were incredibly lovely and professional, I expected hushed tones from the other visitors. Nope, people were wandering around like they were in Tesco (which I'm not making any judgement on).
lmao you realise this thread is about her influencing government policy to retain that wealth? "brings in more money than she takes" is false. And that's ignoring that the family isn't just her.
Still pocketing a fuck tonne of money off it
1) Really? Do you have a source on that?
2) She does ambassadorial stuff. I don't care how rich you are, you should be paid for your work. Then taxed hardcore.
I do - that was the part I told her wasn't cool, in the opening line of my great post. So now she knows.
I would be surprised if it isn't at least a billion. Just letting money sit there in proper investments should double it every 7 years or so.
1) Republic have done a report on the actual cost of the royals here, which also discusses the notion of the money that they actually "bring in" too (you have to click into the actual pdf report to see this). Most of the tourism income figures are based on the questionable premise that tourists would stop coming if the royal family were no longer in power, and also counting visits to UK heritage sites as being due to the royals. The cost figures in this report are arguably too low too, given that they appear to not include the opportunity cost of turning various royal residences into year-round tourist attractions
2) Anyone doing ambassadorial stuff should be paid sure, but this shouldn't be a hereditary job. Nor should it be extended to the rest of her family who do bugger all.
She's always been a miserable old trout
As for public support for them, it's like a never ending reality show and people don't want to lose that
Succession to the British throne - Wikipedia
It's all very specific but also vague. As a Canadian yourself, I'm a little surprised you've not looked into it more, but it's pretty interesting if you do :)
(also Canadian here)
The House of Lords is held up as a secondary revising chamber with experts in a number of areas giving advise and improving legislation. In practice it's an increasingly bloated institution for rewarding political friends. Getting rid of it entirely would open up the question of what to replace it with, which would be quite the constitutional change.
Titles are meant to be an award for good public works, but again it's increasingly become a method to reward friends and donors.
Also
www.theguardian.com
Prince Charles vetted laws that stop his tenants buying their homes
Royals used secretive procedure to approve laws that gave special exemptions to Duchy of Cornwall
www.theguardian.com
Prince Charles vetted laws that stop his tenants buying their homes
Royals used secretive procedure to approve laws that gave special exemptions to Duchy of Cornwall
www.theguardian.com
What a joke
