Do I think the royals should enjoy tax exemptions and special rights? No.
But I am not at all for the government/the country/people who claim to be speaking for the population simply taking away the property of others, rich or not. Why? Because I do not want that precedent to be a thing. Okay, today we do it to Prince Charles. Next week it will be some other rich guy, not a royal, but extremely rich. Then still a rich guy, but on a smaller scale. Then by the time you notice, it will be your property being taken because of some bogus commie reason, like "oh, you have TOO much and others need it more".
Then again, I am not British and this is just my opinion. I don't trust people who claim they should seize assets for "the greater good". It never actually becomes the property of everyone, but someone will act like a vulture and keep it for themselves and it's all rooted in greed and envy.
Again, I don't think Charles is a brilliant human and I don't even think he deserves immeasurable riches. But to assume that if it was taken from him, it would suddenly become yours is ridiculous.
A couple hundred years ago the crown cut a deal with parliament: parliament manages and gets the income from the Windsor lands while they pay the royal family a stipend. Parliament, and the British people, get a lot more in income from those lands than they pay the royal family.
While I agree that Prince Charles is despicable, Republicans who want to overthrow the most stable form of government in all of Europe are really silly.
Any British can be thankful that Queen Elizabeth is their head of state and symbol of unity, and not craven politicians like elsewhere.
Ironically one of the big causes of our current instability is the House of Commons gorging itself on power. The Commons, the Courts and the Lords serve as extensions of Royal power and checks and balances on it. When the crown won't/can't govern, one organ grows too fat from power and wrecks the system.
Sorry about the ramble, but I despise Britain being called a democracy. We're a Parliamentary Monarchy god damn it.
Blame the house of lords. They have become so cowed and spineless in the last decade, it's unreal. In the 2000's I used be amused that the lords - a bunch of toffs and dynastic elites - did more to preserve my liberty than the commons. Now the lords are asleep at the wheel.
Wikipedia says the last time Royal Assent was refused was in 1708. In practice are you actually a Parliamentary Monarchy when the Monarch doesn't fulfill their duty as a final "In Case of Fire Break Glass" check on the Government?
In practice are you actually a Parliamentary Monarchy when the Monarch doesn't fulfill their duty as a final "In Case of Fire Break Glass" check on the Government?
Is America a Constitutional Republic with universal suffrage? Our systems are meant to be a certain way but have in more recent times lost their way. The monarch is meant to rule and work with the other organs of government. These days we do have a crowned republic in everything but name, and I don't like that.
Is America a Constitutional Republic with universal suffrage?
No it's effectively a Representative Oligarchy with the Supreme Court Justices as Oligarchs. Even universal suffrage counts for little when the Court can strike something down as "unconstitutional" for whatever reason it wants.
It's less interesting to me what system of government a nation claims to be than what it actually is.
It's almost like this is the legacy of an ancient form of government that's maintained through tradition and the will of the people to respect one's privacy and property.
He's a bloody rich twat and he makes money from his inherited investments. Like it or hate it, shut the fuck up.
Do I think the royals should enjoy tax exemptions and special rights? No.
But I am not at all for the government/the country/people who claim to be speaking for the population simply taking away the property of others, rich or not. Why? Because I do not want that precedent to be a thing. Okay, today we do it to Prince Charles. Next week it will be some other rich guy, not a royal, but extremely rich. Then still a rich guy, but on a smaller scale. Then by the time you notice, it will be your property being taken because of some bogus commie reason, like "oh, you have TOO much and others need it more".
Then again, I am not British and this is just my opinion. I don't trust people who claim they should seize assets for "the greater good". It never actually becomes the property of everyone, but someone will act like a vulture and keep it for themselves and it's all rooted in greed and envy.
Again, I don't think Charles is a brilliant human and I don't even think he deserves immeasurable riches. But to assume that if it was taken from him, it would suddenly become yours is ridiculous.
A couple hundred years ago the crown cut a deal with parliament: parliament manages and gets the income from the Windsor lands while they pay the royal family a stipend. Parliament, and the British people, get a lot more in income from those lands than they pay the royal family.
These are the lands of the House of Windsor.
While I agree that Prince Charles is despicable, Republicans who want to overthrow the most stable form of government in all of Europe are really silly.
Any British can be thankful that Queen Elizabeth is their head of state and symbol of unity, and not craven politicians like elsewhere.
Ironically one of the big causes of our current instability is the House of Commons gorging itself on power. The Commons, the Courts and the Lords serve as extensions of Royal power and checks and balances on it. When the crown won't/can't govern, one organ grows too fat from power and wrecks the system.
Sorry about the ramble, but I despise Britain being called a democracy. We're a Parliamentary Monarchy god damn it.
Blame the house of lords. They have become so cowed and spineless in the last decade, it's unreal. In the 2000's I used be amused that the lords - a bunch of toffs and dynastic elites - did more to preserve my liberty than the commons. Now the lords are asleep at the wheel.
Wikipedia says the last time Royal Assent was refused was in 1708. In practice are you actually a Parliamentary Monarchy when the Monarch doesn't fulfill their duty as a final "In Case of Fire Break Glass" check on the Government?
Is America a Constitutional Republic with universal suffrage? Our systems are meant to be a certain way but have in more recent times lost their way. The monarch is meant to rule and work with the other organs of government. These days we do have a crowned republic in everything but name, and I don't like that.
No it's effectively a Representative Oligarchy with the Supreme Court Justices as Oligarchs. Even universal suffrage counts for little when the Court can strike something down as "unconstitutional" for whatever reason it wants.
It's less interesting to me what system of government a nation claims to be than what it actually is.
Haven't cared about royals since 1776...
It's almost like this is the legacy of an ancient form of government that's maintained through tradition and the will of the people to respect one's privacy and property.
He's a bloody rich twat and he makes money from his inherited investments. Like it or hate it, shut the fuck up.