American Media Obsessed With British Queen's Record

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: American Media Obsessed With British Queen's Record

Postby BattleMoose » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:31 am UTC

Are you advocating murder?

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: American Media Obsessed With British Queen's Record

Postby leady » Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:06 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:The confiscating thing tends to happen with a revolution or some other form of "throwing off" of the Monarchy.

What we have here are laws, explicitly signed by the state, that guarantee income for these individuals. There isn't any way that the state can reasonably back out of this. No court would uphold it. And last time I checked, the UK was pretty keen on the rule of law, thing.


The UK parliament has unlimited power in a manner that US politician could only dream of. This not only includes invalidating any current agreement, but also they can also write or update laws retrospectively.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: American Media Obsessed With British Queen's Record

Postby BattleMoose » Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:53 am UTC

Reputation is pretty gosh darned important for countries. I simply cannot conceive the UK signing a law, and then going, actually, we don't want to do that anymore now that we have what we want. Anything could happen, but I don't see it happening in this universe, not anytime soon anyways.

Besides, the Royal Family are not stupid, and really like having the things that they have. I am very confident they have wrangled into the bureaucracy mechanisms in which their interests are protected.

jewish_scientist
Posts: 1034
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: American Media Obsessed With British Queen's Record

Postby jewish_scientist » Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:10 pm UTC

bigglesworth wrote:That's correct, but the international community is pretty comfortable with the idea of confiscating the land owned by monarchs. It's not like the reaction that confiscating, say, a Coca-Cola bottling plant would get.


That seems very worrying to me. If your government wants your private possessions, they can take it from you without any negative consequences from the international community, provided that you are a monarch. Why should a citizen's right to property be dependent on who their parents are?
"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
-Socrates

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: American Media Obsessed With British Queen's Record

Postby DSenette » Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:16 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:That's correct, but the international community is pretty comfortable with the idea of confiscating the land owned by monarchs. It's not like the reaction that confiscating, say, a Coca-Cola bottling plant would get.


That seems very worrying to me. If your government wants your private possessions, they can take it from you without any negative consequences from the international community, provided that you are a monarch. Why should a citizen's right to property be dependent on who their parents are?

well.....historically speaking.....a lot of land "owned" by monarchs and the family of monarchs...was at one point owned by the citizens.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: American Media Obsessed With British Queen's Record

Postby BattleMoose » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:02 pm UTC

We should give the USA back to native americans?

Showsni
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:09 pm UTC

Re: American Media Obsessed With British Queen's Record

Postby Showsni » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:23 pm UTC

I'm pretty much bound to have the royal family somewhere in my family tree, going back far enough. So I must be somewhere in line for the throne. If enough people randomly fall ill and die, that means I'd be king! Why would I be against the monarchy when there's a small chance I could be the next king?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: American Media Obsessed With British Queen's Record

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:32 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:That's correct, but the international community is pretty comfortable with the idea of confiscating the land owned by monarchs. It's not like the reaction that confiscating, say, a Coca-Cola bottling plant would get.


That seems very worrying to me. If your government wants your private possessions, they can take it from you without any negative consequences from the international community, provided that you are a monarch. Why should a citizen's right to property be dependent on who their parents are?

well.....historically speaking.....a lot of land "owned" by monarchs and the family of monarchs...was at one point owned by the citizens.


*shrug* Most land ownership has a messy past somewhere. I don't think we can reasonably fix all the mistakes of history. Just got to work on things going forward.

I'm not overly fond of confiscating *anyones* land for solely economic reasons. It's a dangerous thing to wield.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: American Media Obsessed With British Queen's Record

Postby mathmannix » Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:58 pm UTC

Showsni wrote:I'm pretty much bound to have the royal family somewhere in my family tree, going back far enough. So I must be somewhere in line for the throne. If enough people randomly fall ill and die, that means I'd be king! Why would I be against the monarchy when there's a small chance I could be the next king?

Technically, there are only several thousand* people in the line of succession. I'm not one**, and chances are you aren't one either. The succession is currently limited to the non-Catholic descendants of George I (1660-1727), through legitimate descent. Strangely enough, because the law was written when the Catholic Church was the Enemy, it doesn't say the potential monarchs have to be Protestant (or Anglican), just non-Catholic, if I understand it correctly. So, in the complete list, there are a number of Orthodox people (including the former royal families of Russia, Greece, and Romania), and even a handful of Muslims. There is no official complete list or count, however - the official website only lists the first 16 people on the list.

* - there is no official number, and different sources vary widely, with some stating there to be over 6000 (although I think these numbers include Catholics). I think the actual number is somewhere under 3000.
** - I'm not a descendant of George I, and I'm Catholic to boot!
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: American Media Obsessed With British Queen's Record

Postby Zamfir » Fri Sep 18, 2015 8:30 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:The confiscating thing tends to happen with a revolution or some other form of "throwing off" of the Monarchy.

What we have here are laws, explicitly signed by the state, that guarantee income for these individuals. There isn't any way that the state can reasonably back out of this. No court would uphold it. And last time I checked, the UK was pretty keen on the rule of law, thing.

Of course courts would uphold it -if the law is changed, then the new law is the law. Case in point: the law governing this income has already been replaced by different laws at several times, most recently in 2012. Courts seem OK with that. The amount to be given to the royal family gets voted higher or lower at will. They could presumably vote it to 1 pound if they want to. Or decide that jobseeker's allowance counts as support of the royal family.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: American Media Obsessed With British Queen's Record

Postby BattleMoose » Sun Sep 20, 2015 2:26 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:Of course courts would uphold it -if the law is changed, then the new law is the law. Case in point: the law governing this income has already been replaced by different laws at several times, most recently in 2012. Courts seem OK with that.


This required the consent of the Royal Family.

The amount to be given to the royal family gets voted higher or lower at will.


This has now been changed, the income is now set at 15% of the income of the Crown Estate, again, with the consent of the Royal Family.

They could presumably vote it to 1 pound if they want to. Or decide that jobseeker's allowance counts as support of the royal family.


I really don't think that they actually could. Not lawfully anyway. I don't really understand exactly what the recent 2012 changes effected it, but although the Crown Estate isn't the private property of the Monarch, it was/is the property of the reigning Monarch.

Should the Monarch stops being the Monarch, who owns the crown estate would be an, "interesting" legal question. One which the royal family would have been preparing for, for centuries.

Eowiel
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:57 pm UTC

Re: American Media Obsessed With British Queen's Record

Postby Eowiel » Sun Sep 20, 2015 10:24 am UTC

But courts apply the law, if you change the law to make it possible, courts will uphold that. Courts will ofcourse check whether the new law is in accordance with applicable rules, but those rules are also laws, which can be changed. They don't need consent from the royal family to change those laws just like don't need need consent from the population to change any laws.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: American Media Obsessed With British Queen's Record

Postby BattleMoose » Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:05 pm UTC

They don't need consent from the royal family to change those laws just like don't need need consent from the population to change any laws.


Actually, they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Consent

The expectation of course would be that if consent is withheld, then, they just change the laws so they don't need her consent. This is exactly what happened in Luxembourg and they changed the law so they needn't have his consent.

Whats interesting is that the Queen did withhold consent as recently as 1998. Removal of Crown Immunity bill. And, nothing happened.

The details of the crown estate and the actual legal niceties I expect are actually abhorrently complicated. And I am sure the royals have wrangled themselves into a secure position. Getting the crown estate from them or a share of income from it, I expect is a great deal more complicated than, "just changing some laws".

jewish_scientist
Posts: 1034
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: American Media Obsessed With British Queen's Record

Postby jewish_scientist » Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:09 pm UTC

Here is where I got that information on the Royal family's land.

It is even worst than you think, assuming you want to take the royal lands from the royal family. King George the 3rd (a.k.a. the guy that lost the American colonies) made the deal with Parliament that profits from his lands would go to the treasury for exchange of a fixed salary for the rest of his life. Every king or queen since then has voluntarily agreed to give parliament the profits of their land. If Parliament decided to stop giving the royal family a salary, then they will simply not give Parliament their land's profits.

Also, I got my numbers wrong. The royal salary is 40 million pounds and the land's yearly profits are 200 million pounds.
"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
-Socrates


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests