Things like the navy, the army, the government
Printable View
Things like the navy, the army, the government
Actually the crown estates span much of the globe. The Queen titularly owns 1/6th of all land in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
The crown estates are of course in reality managed by each nations government. A very large proportion of Canada (89%) is officially crown land. Now if Canada were to become a republic then the Canadian crown estates would presumably revert to the new Canadian government and not be owned by the house of Windsor. I don't think anyone would object to that. Or does anyone seriously think that were Canada to choose to be a republic (or Quebec) that the house of Windsor as private citizens ought to own 89% of the country privately?
So why should it be any different for us?
Yes the crown estates were supposed to pay for the government. Specifically civil government, civil and diplomatic services.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
It was not one sided that the monarch gave the crown estates revenues to Parliament - it has been part of our constitution essentially since George III (think American revolution) and in exchange Parliament pays for civil government etc ... Plus after generations of maladministration by the monarchs the crown estates that George III gave over to Parliament were not worth much at all, the agreement was struck to avoid him going bankrupt.
Were the monarch to reclaim the crown estates, they also ought to pay for government too. Good luck with that!
Quite. I think we're in agreement - right?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Sorry about earlier, when I was referring to the Crown estates I was specifically trying to talk about those in the UK.
Yes we are in agreement. It is pure spin to claim that the Crown Estates belong to the monarch any more than US Federal Estates belong to Obama personally. They have always been a function of government and have been managed and used by Parliament's Treasury to help fund the government (after Parliament took over that responsibility) for over 250 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
The only thing that would change in the event of becoming a republic is a change of the name.
I thought that, by the time of George III, George was only obligated to pay for the civilian government. But he couldn't pay because the civilian government was only funded by land ownership revenues, which couldn't possibly support a growing civilian government (public unions? :p ). So George III agreed to hand over revenues (and civilian government costs) to Parliament in exchange for guaranteed income from the general government pool.
It sounds like Parliament "abolishing" the monarchy would constitute a pretty fundamental breach of contract they made in exchange for revenue streams from land.
Parliamentary supremacy.
Can they bypass the need for her signature? We have seen some examples of figure heads of state milking that to the bitter end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki