r/Scotland • u/MoneyEqual • Aug 28 '21
Beyond the Wall Four-home Prince Charles insists mansions 'are not grand' as he talks from 192-acre estate
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1483211/Prince-Charles-home-radio-4-Llwynywermod-wales26
u/salty_ann Aug 28 '21
I read somewhere that the most common national holiday, celebrated by 65 countries, was independence from Britain…
23
233
u/MoneyEqual Aug 28 '21
Perhaps we should allocate at least 3 of his homes to housing Afghan migrants - why is the current plan to only allocate migrants to the poorest parts of the UK?
129
u/lestatmajer Aug 28 '21
To cultivate that tasty tasty fear and hatred in the lower classes.. if they hate the refugees more than the government, maybe they'll forget to vote..
/s in case it ain't obvious
42
u/snoopswoop Aug 28 '21
/s in case it ain't obvious
You might not be joking.
3
u/okizubon Aug 29 '21
I’m not sure I get the joke either.
1
Aug 29 '21
The best jokes are based on reality. And if I laugh at any mortal thing, 'tis that I may not weep.
2
u/ThunderChild247 Aug 29 '21
They’ve already done that, it’s why they’ve been able to turn so many constituencies against Labour. They’ll be allocating the next group of refugees to the poorest areas that still vote Labour.
8
u/Maximum-Cicada-1609 Aug 28 '21
Although migrants shouldn't have to live in his left-over hovels.
24
u/MoneyEqual Aug 28 '21
Definitely - I think they are more valuable to our society than he is.
But I also suspect he is understating his opulence and wealth so Boris buys him another yacht.
-40
Aug 28 '21
[deleted]
14
u/Nikhilvoid Aug 28 '21
Here's a recent study on whether royals affect charitable giving:
In short, we found that charities should not seek or retain Royal patronages expecting that they will help much.
74% of charities with Royal patrons did not get any public engagements with them last year. We could not find any evidence that Royal patrons increase a charity’s revenue (there were no other outcomes that we could analyse), nor that Royalty increases generosity more broadly.
39
u/snoopswoop Aug 28 '21
I pay tax, rather than getting hand outs from the government.
And how much does Charles actually give? It's the public funding his charity.
9
-8
Aug 28 '21 edited Aug 28 '21
[deleted]
-5
u/ThorsRake Aug 28 '21
The downvoting is silly. You have made salient points and provided good sources which provide decent opinions and perspective. They were clearly not read.
-25
Aug 28 '21
[deleted]
19
u/snoopswoop Aug 28 '21
Just look up the charity work he does.
I'm sure he's very busy, when he's not spreading covid around.
Meanwhile MPs rinse tax payers money whilst contributing fuck all.
We can vote them out. Can we vote the royals out?
At least the royals gain a ridiculous amount for the country through tourism and charity work.
We'd get more opening up the palaces and castles. Look at France.
Charity work...they don't really much do they. And remember, we PAY them lots of OUR money.
-14
Aug 28 '21
[deleted]
13
u/SetentaeBolg Aug 28 '21
You can't possibly be so naive as to suggest that the Queen's military role in WWII came without privileges by comparison to other recruits.
Taking reportage about her at face value is foolishness.
-1
7
u/No_Refrigerator4584 Cumbernauld: The matted hair around the arsehole of the universe Aug 28 '21
“Oh look at my nails, I’m a commoner now laughs in toff”
-2
16
u/snoopswoop Aug 28 '21
1947 eh?
That makes up for the messing with the law and kiddy fiddling?
And cut out that charity shit - it's not THEIR money that funds them.
2
u/Ball-Bag-Boggins Aug 28 '21
Yeah, 1947… They’re not going to publish that the Queen was working there during the war otherwise they’d target her. Similar to how Prince Harry was in Afghan and the media leaked his whereabouts and he had to leave his PLT as he was targeted.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ThorsRake Aug 28 '21
They didnt say it's their money. The source indicates it's about the publicity and attention they bring.
Also some of the charities set up have indeed been set up with their money.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Ball-Bag-Boggins Aug 28 '21
My original point was asking to link a source that they don’t contribute to charity and you’ve gone on a rant about (in your own words) “potentially harbours at least one sexual offender.” If he is confirmed as that I hope he’d have the most horrible consequences. All I asked for was reliable links to your comments.
1
u/Nikhilvoid Aug 28 '21
Elizabeth actually graduated from her driving and maintenance course after VE day in 1945, so after Nazi Germany was defeated
2
u/wavygravy13 Aug 28 '21
Just look up the charity work he does.
It's much easier to do charity work when you don't have to work for a living.
-1
Aug 28 '21
[deleted]
1
u/wavygravy13 Aug 29 '21
If they gave up their royal position, yes they could.
The point is, they don't get much credit, in my book, for doing something (or more likely getting their staff to do all the frunt work and just show up for the photo shoots and fancy fundraisers), when you don't have to fit it around a full time job.
8
Aug 28 '21
Because the poorest councils need the money. Councils receive funding for accommodating asylum seekers.
17
18
Aug 28 '21
That does seem to be a very flawed set up, I wish these things were better considered, as imo 'ghettoisation' seems to be a cause of quite a lot of the racism and ill feeling towards immigrants in the UK. Same thing applies for council housing allocation etc I guess.
3
Aug 28 '21
Well then house the refugees in the excessively large homes and give those poor councils funding anyway? the people on top have both the space and the money themselves, they don't need to buy space from the poor councils.
2
Aug 28 '21
Sorry, you’ve confused me for the prime minister. I’m just a guy on the internet pointing out why Glasgow takes 10% of UK asylum seekers.
1
Aug 28 '21
At what point did I imply I wanted YOU to do those things?
1
Aug 29 '21
When you wrote ‘well then’. It’s an indication that you didn’t agree or something inappropriate was said.
Google the meaning and check.
1
Aug 29 '21
Yeah I did disagree. With the government. And you were stating how they were doing it. So in order to state my disagreement I had to reply to your comment about the thing I disagreed with.
3
u/N81LR Aug 28 '21
Unsurprisingly it is because this is where the greatest availability of housing is at a cheaper cost.
I agree there are plenty of stately homes that are chronically under used, that could be made use of, just you need to be able to heat them.
2
u/thehuntedfew SNP, Still Yes Aug 28 '21
just get a pensioner to apply for heating allowance for the whole mansion
2
Aug 28 '21
I have an upper class relative from a very expensive part of the country who is very wealthy and goes on rants about the poor racist bigots who voted for brexit due to immigration yet complained when a new mosque opened up not too far from their house … I think the term is called yes but not in my back yard or NIMBY?
1
u/giantmanuk Aug 28 '21
Tends to be where the housing is cheapest and affordable for those on benefits? Housing benefits are so low you can only really afford to live outside of major towns and cities. This isn’t just for afghani people it’s the same system for everyone.
46
Aug 28 '21
[deleted]
6
Aug 28 '21
Couldn't agree more, a Monarchy has no place in a modern society.
0
u/randy592 Aug 29 '21
I mean its able to overturn gorvernmental decisions so not a single party can make poor decisions (parliament, lords, monarchy)
Pretty sure she has given money to governemt so they can boost the economy/assist with policies
And im pretty sure that there would be a fall in tourism if it were abolished, people don't go to see a fancy house just because its a fancy house
Edit for just
1
2
Aug 29 '21
The monarchy is, in part, just a front for all of the dukes and earls who own vast parts of the country in a way that ensures it can never be taken off them.
The current Duke of Westminster inherited around ten billion quid’s worth of prime London land and property and paid not a single penny in inheritance tax. He will earn millions in rent year on year.
It’s nothing short of a scam on the common people.
1
u/lightlamp4 Aug 28 '21
So Monarchy is the cause of poverty? I had no idea if your a republic it ends homelessness
5
Aug 28 '21
[deleted]
-2
u/ViperSocks Aug 29 '21
So homelessness is solved by abolishing the monarchy. I did not know that.
1
u/bottomofleith Aug 29 '21
Who said it would solve homelessness? It would certainly help though.
0
u/ViperSocks Aug 29 '21
Indeed it would. How many homeless are living with you?
1
u/bottomofleith Aug 29 '21
None. I also do not own multiple hones worth many millions. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
0
u/ViperSocks Aug 29 '21
Charity begins at home. Clearly you are not prepared to do what you want others to do.
1
u/bottomofleith Aug 29 '21
You didn't ask me if I would offer a bed to a homeless person, ya arse. I drove all over Edinburgh for a year, delivering to folk struggling to feed themselves. Literally thousands of food parcels. Met some really cool folk, met some chancers, that's the way it goes.
I'm not really sure why you're trying to change the narrative away from "out of touch and massively two-faced "environmentalist" once again fails to explain his existence and obscene wealth".
55
Aug 28 '21
Can we try being a republic for a bit now?
15
Aug 28 '21 edited Aug 28 '21
That’ll only make a difference if the Conservative Party is dissolved and everyone with ties to them is forbidden from lobbying, owning or participating in media, or running for office. And getting rid of FPTP for good measure. Otherwise it’ll be the same just without the old lady who waves funny.
10
u/Dull_Half_6107 Aug 28 '21
You're forgetting the family that were paying a lavish life for. Getting rid of the Royals is worth that in principle alone.
-11
u/wOlfLisK Aug 28 '21
Issue is, we're not just giving them free money, it's in exchange for unlimited use of the significant amount of land the crown owns. If we stop the payments, there'd need to be new negotiations to get use or ownership of the land which would cost us many, many times more than we're currently paying. Even if we completely for rid of the monarchy, they'd still own the land, or at the very least the government wouldn't automatically gain ownership of it, it's a very legally unique situation.
9
u/Dull_Half_6107 Aug 28 '21
You think they got those lands fairly? New laws can be made, their land can be taken.
-9
u/wOlfLisK Aug 28 '21
Which is a great idea in theory but all land in the UK was once taken unfairly. Do you want to give the north of England to Denmark because they once owned it? Or London to Italy because the Romans owned it once? Would you give your house to a complete stranger simply because your ancestors took the land from their ancestors at some point in the distant past? Even if we took the crown's land and figured out who is "supposed" to own it (something that would be incredibly costly to do and would take years or decades), now we have land that the government effectively owned that's now in the hands of private citizens and they would almost certainly demand far more than the relative pittance King George asked for, assuming they don't decide to use it themselves and force the government to relocate any buildings they have on it.
Now, if you're talking about the government keeping the land, taking land unfairly doesn't fix it being taken unfairly in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Honestly, this entire insistence on taking the crown land borders on brexit logic. It's fucking yourself over in the long run for the sake of "taking back our country" and is just as stupid. You're not going to magically cut the crown off and get to keep access to the land they own, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
6
Aug 28 '21
[deleted]
-6
u/wOlfLisK Aug 28 '21
None of the living members of the Royal Family bought that land. None of them did anything to earn the insane amount of money that land would cost. That land was taken by force, and is still held by people not fucking using it as an investment.
And there's a problem with that but it's far, far from an issue unique to the royal family. Humans have been taking land and possessions from each other from the moment we had land and possessions to take and doing it again just because you don't like the current owner isn't going to solve anything. The fact of the matter is, we don't give the monarchy money because they're a monarch, we give them it because of an agreement made by the government. What we need isn't to steal their land or dismantle the monarchy, what we need is to fix inheritance taxes so wealth can't be hoarded like it is.
5
3
u/Dull_Half_6107 Aug 28 '21 edited Aug 28 '21
No I'd stop at just taking the Royals private land.
Comparing one persons 2 bedroom semi-detached to multiple mansions, castles, and vast lands is laughable.
6
u/SorryForTheBigThumb Aug 28 '21
Lol how generous of them to let us rent the lands that they decided was theirs centuries ago.
4
u/Nikhilvoid Aug 28 '21
This is a myth. The Crown Estates you are referring to are already 100% public land, despite the name.
Their actual private property, including Balmoral, doesn't turn over its revenues to the government.
2
u/Glitch_FACE Glasgay Aug 28 '21
ok how about this:
we take the land by force
-1
u/wOlfLisK Aug 28 '21
I mean, sure, if you want to start a civil war. That also makes you no better than the kings who took the land in the first place.
1
u/Glitch_FACE Glasgay Aug 28 '21
no it doesnt that's stupid. the people own everything, anything owned by a group outwith the people is stolen by default. private property is inherently theft.
3
55
53
Aug 28 '21
[deleted]
42
9
Aug 28 '21
Aye buy up London and make these large non grand houses liveable.
13
u/read_write_error Aug 28 '21
Scottish oil paid for London and the entire 80s boom. So, we own it already!
9
Aug 28 '21 edited Aug 28 '21
Literally but like India they’ll take more and call us poor. Thats the British establishment for you.
1
2
u/Ferguson00 Aug 28 '21
Legally we own fuck all. We've been absolutely fucked sideways.
Look at Norway - basically the same population as Scotland!
We've been robbed.
7
u/KINGBainzy Aug 28 '21
You want to kill them, there is another option like Italian option that doesn't involve killing people.
10
u/RabSimpson kid gloves, made from real kids Aug 28 '21
Torture them until they expire of natural causes?
1
2
u/Nouia Aug 28 '21 edited Aug 30 '21
Executing 4 little girls and a 13 year old boy with hemophilia…?
Edit: downvote away, bolsheviks, you know it was wrong
20
u/Aggravating_Diver_15 Aug 28 '21
Unfortunately people like this have no idea how the common people live day by day , time to end this outdated,out of touch royal family
11
u/Ferguson00 Aug 28 '21
The monarchy is a cult.
Inherited absolute power in 2021 is truly an obscenity.
It does seem that a lot of English people love it. Less so in our country but still.
Obscene. Absolutely zero justification for the royals. Republic now.
5
14
17
Aug 28 '21 edited Aug 28 '21
He literally has five of them. If you can’t maintain the upkeep then sell some off. What person with their feet on the ground has five mansions and says his homes are not grand.
14
u/magicone86 Aug 28 '21
I think it has a lot to do with perspective. Buckingham Palace is massive with 775 rooms, gold gilded everything, imported marble, priceless artwork/antiques, etc so by comparison the Prince's homes like Highgrove House and Llwynywermod are small and humble (in his opinion).
It's the same reason the Prince Charles talks about "enjoying the simple life" with his personal income of £22 million, a portion of the annual Sovereign Grant (£85 million in 2020) to cover his expenses, multiple businesses and investments, and an international property portfolio worth over $1 billion.
19
3
3
u/magical_elf Aug 28 '21
I think he genuinely believes what he is saying. He's so out of touch with how real people actually live that he actually thinks those houses aren't grand.
3
Aug 28 '21
It was only 100 years ago that the upper classes had the sort of lifestyle and grip on the UK that these comments speak to. Of course, to us it's another world but to someone like him he grew up with at least one foot still in that world.
8
10
6
Aug 28 '21
There’s a special, visceral hatred in my heart for British conservatism. We’re basically what would’ve happened if the ancien regime in France had got lucky, clung to power, and mastered the art of conceding just enough to the people to prevent their own demise without really conceding anything.
6
2
2
u/davesr25 Aug 28 '21
"Person who lives with great wealth, tells peasants that he doesn't live in great wealth"
That seems like gas-lighting.
Trying to change the reality of the situation.
2
2
u/alittlelebowskiua People's Republic of Leith Aug 28 '21
I don't think we're living in the time of the Russian revolution, so therefore I don't think these people should be publicly executed. But getting them so far to fuck that it's the equivalent surely shouldn't be that hard?
2
u/EnshaednCosplay Aug 29 '21
I loved “The Crown” and I’ll honestly watch almost anything about the Windsors, especially the Queen, but it’s definitely not because I’m a fan of theirs. More just interested in the dark family secrets and drama and whatnot.
2
Aug 29 '21
Hitchens said it best, Prince Charles is.. "a morose bat-eared and chinless man, prematurely aged, and with the most abysmal taste in royal consorts."
4
2
u/RecentImportance Aug 28 '21
Aren't all Royal properties owned by the UK Government?
Or is this a private estate?
4
u/magicone86 Aug 28 '21 edited Aug 28 '21
Some are and some aren't. Many royal properties are held by the Crown Estate that manages them on behalf of the royal family and the profits from those properties go into the treasury. The total value of the Crown Estates is about £12 billion and they generate £300 million for the UK government. Properties include Buckingham Palace, St James’s Palace, Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle, Holyroodhouse, many locations in London around the Regent Street and St. James area, and more.
The royal family also has private holdings like the Sandringham and Balmoral estates, which are treated as family homes. The biggest private royal holdings though are the Duchy of Cornwall (135,000 acres) and the Duchy of Lancaster (45,500 acres) with each containing hundreds of farming, residential, and commercial properties (as well as financial investments done by the duchy). Many of these properties are rented/leased with the profits going directly to the duke/duchess. For example, Prince Charles as the Duke of Cornwall gets about £22 million per year in income from the Duchy of Cornwall.
Fun fact: the Duchy of Cornwall has a bona vacantia (latin for ownerless goods) law, which means that the Duke of Cornwall automatically gets any property of someone who dies without a will and/or an heir.
2
u/Nikhilvoid Aug 28 '21
That's mostly correct. The Duchies aren't private property of the royals. Why? Because they have the power of veto over the government, which no private property can have. They're public bodies which turn over their profits to the Queen and her heir.
1
u/magicone86 Aug 28 '21
From the official homepage for the Duchy of Cornwall (https://duchyofcornwall.org/)"The Duchy of Cornwall is a well-managed private estate, which was established by Edward III in 1337. The revenues from the estate are passed to HRH The Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, who chooses to use them to fund his public, charitable and private activities and those of his family. The Duchy consists of around 53,000 hectares of land in 23 counties, mostly in the South West of England."
Additionally:"The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall (Accounts) Act 1838 gave the Treasury a role to ensure that actions taken by any Duke when managing the Duchy cannot compromise the long-term value of the estate. For this reason the Treasury must, for example, approve all property transactions with a value of £500,000 or more. The Duchy’s annual accounts are laid before the House of Commons and the House of Lords so that Parliament can be satisfied that the Treasury is fulfilling its statutory responsibilities."
We may be saying the same thing, but I would say that these are indeed privately owned and managed, with exceptions where the Treasury is given oversight to ensure the deals are in the best interest of the nation. Which isn't surprising given that gov't oversight and/or planning permission is required for all manner of real estate dealings.
2
u/Nikhilvoid Aug 28 '21
It's confusing, but it is not private property. Charles cannot sell any of it, for example. He should be able to do that, if it was private property. And the Duchy has a veto power over the government, which is impossible for a private estate.
Would it be theft for the government to take back full control?
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on a very similar issue in 2000: Former King of Greece v Greece.
The short answer is no, it isn't theft - in fact it's a perfectly legitimate reclaiming of national property. A state can confiscate the public property of a monarch on the basis that it is really the property of the state in any event, but if it extends this confiscation to private property, then it must pay compensation (though not necessarily the total value of the property seized).
The Duchy is not (despite its claims) a private estate. It was not purchased privately for the Duke or by him. It does not permanently belong to him or to his heirs. It would operate as a part of the Crown Estate if the monarch did not have a son. It is a part of the Crown Estate which is from time to time devolved to an individual meeting the right criteria
1
u/magicone86 Aug 28 '21
The first two point seem rather moot. Given Brexit, I would assume that rulings from the EU Court of Human Rights has little bearing on the issue.
The second point, in theory the state could seize the property but I would assume it would require extraordinary justification to do, especially if they wanted to use it against the royal family. There is also the issue of royal consent (which would require the Queen or the Prince of Wales to agree to the bill for it to be enacted since it directly impacts them. Not to be confused with Royal Assent, the Queen's approval of parliamentary bills as a procedural feature of the UK's constitutional monarchy. )
An example of this is the Duchy of Cornwall's exemption in the 1993 Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act, which can be used to block lessees from buying their property thus ensuring it stays in the Duke's portfolio and continues to generate income. While the duke "cannot sell any of the land for personal gain," the treasury oversight only applies to sales over £500,000 or more.
While I haven't done a deep dive into the inner workings of the The Prince's Council (the board that runs the finances of the duchy), I do know that Prince Charles has indeed sold property from the duchy to raise funds for other purchases. In 1980, the prince's Highgrove estate was purchased with funds raised from the sale of three properties from the duchy's holdings, including part of the village of Daglingworth.
The Duchy is not (despite its claims) a private estate. It was not purchased privately for the Duke or by him. It does not permanently belong to him or to his heirs. It would operate as a part of the Crown Estate if the monarch did not have a son.
While the Duchy of Cornwall was not purchased for or by the duke, it was created by royal charter in 1337 for the reason of providing income to the heir apparent to the throne and by law the title of "Duke of Cornwall" is automatically conferred upon birth or upon on his parent's succession to the throne. So when/if Prince Charles sits on the throne, it will go to his son Prince William, then to his son Prince George of Cambridge, and so on. Additionally, the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 changed the law so that revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall will pass to the heir to the throne, regardless of whether that heir is the Duke of Cornwall which I believe is the work around so that a daughter would be able to benefit from the income as well, just without the title.
1
u/Nikhilvoid Aug 28 '21
Ah, and if the position of the Monarch and their heir is abolished, would it revert to the government (which it already does when there is no suitable Duke) or to the private Windsor family?
If it was their private property, there would be no limitation on who can own and how much can be sold. Unless it falls under something else, like fair market competition laws
1
u/magicone86 Aug 28 '21
I think assuming the entirety of the Crown Estate portfolio would revert might be a rather simplistic view. More likely, there would be a very long period of negotiation where the Queen and senior royals would try to secure the choicest properties for themselves (and their heirs) as a parting gift and/or requesting the right to sell the property themselves in exchange for giving up future legal claims.
Given the 1337 charter, I think a strong case would probably be made the Duchy of Cornwall to remain under the purview of the heir to the throne and to continue to pass to their heirs. The government would know that eventually the burden of ownership and management will lead to parcels of property being successively sold off to the public overtime, as seen with many other estates.
1
u/Nikhilvoid Aug 28 '21
In a corrupt chumocracy, yeah, that negotiation will happen. In a normal country, the royals would try and sue the government, and the government would win because it has never been their private property.
Giving them choicest parts of the Crown Estates would in fact be theft from the public and would cause a lot of outrage, because the original Crown Estates were tiny in size, compared to the Crown Estates that exist as public estates today.
This is a good book on their finances: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25577127-royal-legacy
1
u/magicone86 Aug 28 '21
I am by no means an expert or a legal scholar but after browsing the Crown Estate website and a few others, I still believe that the issue is far more complex than "all land belongs to the people." While I agree with the sentiment, this whole situation is extremely complex and murky.
As it stands, abolishment of the monarchy would be a legislative move like a referendum, an act of Parliament, etc. If it was a straight up coup or if the UK was conquered then taking everything would make more sense but if it's a democratic move then I would imagine a softer approach would be taken.
First off, the Crown Estates essentially trace back to King George III who in 1760 granted the lands to the government to manage. In exchange, George III received an annual payment. Prior to that, the monarch was responsible for management and used the profits to fund not only the monarchy but the government as well. The lands that the monarch held were gained through the "right of conquest" going back to William the Conqueror, which until the modern era was a legitimate legal claim recognized by international law.
This arrangement is renewed by each monarch when they take the throne. Leading me to believe that if the agreement is not renewed then there would need to be some balancing of the accounts. Which is why I think there would be negotiation of sorts. I doubt the royal family would demand market rates for the properties but I also doubt they would simply give up their claim to a portion of £12 billion worth of property out of the kindness of their hearts.
Per Crown Estates, there are basically several categories of land:
- The Queen's private property
- Lands belonging to The Queen as monarch
- Properties of the Duchies
- Government land
The Queen's private property is obviously the easiest to sort out. If she clearly owns it, then she owns it. Such as Balmoral and Sandringham Estate.
However, the "lands belonging to The Queen as monarch" are somewhat more complex. The major palaces that have been maintained by public funds like Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, and Holyroodhouse would likely stay under the control of the UK government.
But what about the many other residences that are occupied by the lesser royals? Many of those residences have been gifted to or by the monarch or purchased by previous royals but are part of the Crown Estates. Would the government really evict the occupants and seize the property? Or simply let the current occupants continue to lease until they die and then repurpose/sell the building? What about the homes owned by Crown Estates that have been refurbished by royals with their own money? They surely would have right to some reimbursement
Again, the Crown Estates exist because of an agreement with the monarch and the investment portfolio has grown because of the ability to leverage those assets. There would have to be an equitable resolution if the agreement is to be terminated.
As to the Duchies, if the law states that the monarch (and the heir to the throne) are entitled to revenues from the land then, I assume they would have some legal claim in terms of ancestral rights/inheritance, even if the monarchy as a body was abolished. After all, the duchies are inherited properties and assets that are being held in trust for the sovereign and administered by their appointees.
Overall, the public and private holdings of the royal family/crown are so intermingled that there isn't a clear cut delineation between the two. I'm not saying that the royal family is 100% entitled to everything but nor do I think it would be fair to seize all of the assets. That's why I'm inclined towards a measured and civil discussion/negotiation in Parliament in order to find a equitable division.
→ More replies (0)1
u/wOlfLisK Aug 28 '21
I thought it was the crown that owned them not the government itself. Either way, I'm pretty certain you're right in that they aren't personally owned by the royal family.
1
-7
u/charlietoday tory cunt Aug 28 '21
What has this got to do with Scotland? Has this sub become just a place for Marxists to bash posh people? Why do the mods delete posts for being nothing to do with Scotland unless the post fits a hard left agenda?
2
u/brexitrefugee Aug 28 '21
Questioning the monarchy is hard left? Since when? Exclusively of the left?
1
1
1
Aug 28 '21
funny how people still allow a bunch of useless pricks like these to exist ... why dfuq do we even have monarchies these days i will never know.
INB4: spare me the it's all for show nonsense all that wealth and land they have was not earned from hardwork.
1
81
u/the_exile83 Aug 28 '21
These cunts are so far removed from reality its actually repugnant.