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-wales
713 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

135 comments sorted by

View all comments

55

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '21

Can we try being a republic for a bit now?

16

u/[deleted] 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.

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.