So why doesn't she ?

[Hazir]

Yesterday Queen Beatrix surprised The Netherlands with an announcement we all knew would be coming; she's stepping down and leaves the throne to her son Willem-Alexander who's 45 years old and father of 3 daughters. In the announcement by HM herself she told that her stepping down was not because she was tired of her position, but that she felt it was time to hand over to a new generation. This is not something that's all that much out of the ordinary in The Netherlands; this is the third time it happens this way.

Then I saw some headlines from the UK about this news that sort of made it more about Queen Elisabeth never doing something like this because she believes being the Monarch is something that stays with you till your last breath. And of course she has a point; most kings had their scepters pried from their cold dead hands. Staying on till the bitter end has the argument of tradition and monarchy is very much about tradition. Then, on the other hand, she's been the Queen for over 60 years and she's got a son who's 65 now and if he ever becomes king he'll be the longest heir appearant in British history. It seems like an act of cruelty almost to reduce your oldest son to a man who for the duration of his life never was more than waiting for his calling to come. Shouldn't Elisabeth acknowledge that traditions need to be adapted to survive and recognize that staying on till you died was good for a time where kings and queens went to their maker at a much younger age than she has lived? Does she really take joy in making her son a second Prince Edward?

[RandBlade]

Should a monarchy exist or not in this day and age is a bigger question than should the monarch step down. If a monarchy is right (I'm a republican) then I don't see why it should come with an expiry date unless or until the monarch chooses to abdicate.

As for bonnie prince Charles - if he wanted to at any stage he could have abdicated his position in the line of the throne and gone out and got a real job. I've got no sympathy for a 65-year old that his mother's still alive.

[Hazir]

Should a monarchy exist or not in this day and age is a bigger question than should the monarch step down. If a monarchy is right (I'm a republican) then I don't see why it should come with an expiry date unless or until the monarch chooses to abdicate.

As for bonnie prince Charles - if he wanted to at any stage he could have abdicated his position in the line of the throne and gone out and got a real job. I've got no sympathy for a 65-year old that his mother's still alive.

Not addressing the republican angle, I agree with you there.

But don't you think it's odd that a mother (besides being the Queen she's also a mother) who has the choice to give her job to her son and who seems to value the heriditary principle in practise denies that son a chance to make anything out of that job? If she lives as long as her mother he'll be 78 by the time he gets to be King. Far too late to make any imprint on the monarchy of his own.

[RandBlade]

Not addressing the republican angle, I agree with you there.

But don't you think it's odd that a mother (besides being the Queen she's also a mother) who has the choice to give her job to her son and who seems to value the heriditary principle in practise denies that son a chance to make anything out of that job? If she lives as long as her mother he'll be 78 by the time he gets to be King. Far too late to make any imprint on the monarchy of his own.

No. She believes in duty, that duty is hers as long as she lives not his.

[Dreadnaught]

Maybe she also sorta believes he isn't fit for it and knows he will be more pressured to pass along to William the longer she lives.

[wiggin]

Honestly? Who cares.

[Hazir]

Maybe she also sorta believes he isn't fit for it and knows he will be more pressured to pass along to William the longer she lives.

Thus publicly castrating her son? And which mother actively strives for outliving her own children? Because that is what she needs to do in order for Charles not to be King in her strict understanding of what it means to be the King. When she dies he's the King already and abdication is out of the question (obviously). That means there will be no 'passing the crown to William' under the present arrangement.

[Hazir]

Honestly? Who cares.

Charles I would think, but besides him, that's the talk that automatically followed Beatrix' move. Also in Belgium by the way. The news reports the abdication of Beatrix, then people start to talk about it in terms of 'Isn't it about time Albert follows her lead?'. Pretty much the same you saw in the UK.

[wiggin]

Does it affect anyone at all except for Charles? Nope. Still not caring.

[Veldan Rath]

The British Tourism Dept probably like have QE. KC wouldn't be mush of a draw...

William and Harry are the ones that would bring in more cash...(Especially Harry now...)

[Hazir]

Does it affect anyone at all except for Charles? Nope. Still not caring.

A coronation probably would generate a lot of money. Part of the appeal of the UK as a holiday destination is the pomp and circumstance of the Royal family. They draw crowds on the worst of days.

[wiggin]

A coronation probably would cost a lot of money. Part of the appeal of the UK as a holiday destination is the pomp and circumstance of the Royal family. They draw crowds on the worst of days.

ftfy

[RandBlade]

Does it affect anyone at all except for Charles? Nope. Still not caring.

Does it affect Charles? He's probably happier that his mother's still around rather than moping because he's not King yet.

[Hazir]

ftfy

The costs are a lot less than the proceeds. It's not like they have to build a new church every time they change monarch.

@Randblade: he might be happier being the king with his mother still alive.

[Veldan Rath]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYg...wmw_D&index=27

[wiggin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYg...wmw_D&index=27

That's absurd, it assumes that the Royals had any right to the Crown lands in the first place, and presupposes that tourist income would be significantly lower without an active royal family.

[ar81]

If a king or queen does not rule the nation, why should anyone worry about it?

[Hazir]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYg...wmw_D&index=27

If they movie is anywhere accurate they are still the owners of that land. And Ownership is still considered a fairly basic human right overhere.

[wiggin]

Bullshit. The UK government owns 'Crown' lands. When the UK government was a monarchy, great, it was owned by the Royal family. Now the UK government is a democracy, and the land is owned by the people, in trust of the government. Suggesting that the Royal family is doing the UK a favor by allowing them the use of Royal lands is absurd. Royal property is NOT the same as personal property.

[RandBlade]

Technically crown lands are owned by the crown (family not government). Of course they're exempt from Inheritance Tax etc that normal citizens have had to pay. As far as I'm concerned the government should claim the lands, but its very doubtful that the ECHR would back it up.

[wiggin]

Technically crown lands are owned by the crown (family not government). Of course they're exempt from Inheritance Tax etc that normal citizens have had to pay. As far as I'm concerned the government should claim the lands, but its very doubtful that the ECHR would back it up.

I understand the technicality, but I think it's absurd. They only 'own' those lands by dint of being the government in the past and having all sorts of powers they no longer have (and should never have had). That does not entitle them to personal ownership of the land; IMO it's government land and that's that. The Crown is not doing the UK a 'favor'; quite the other way around.

[RandBlade]

I agree entirely. Unfortunately logic and the law don't always see eye to eye.

[Hazir]

I understand the technicality, but I think it's absurd. They only 'own' those lands by dint of being the government in the past and having all sorts of powers they no longer have (and should never have had). That does not entitle them to personal ownership of the land; IMO it's government land and that's that. The Crown is not doing the UK a 'favor'; quite the other way around.

It's also so much fun when people try to ignore both history and the law just because they think a system of government is intrinsically wrong. Is the US doing Bill Gates a favor too? And Warren Buffet? Their holdings are not really theirs but the people's because now they don't do anything any longer to justify their claim of ownership? Or do you just suggest a 100% death tax? Oh no, you don't. You actually think it's utterly unfair to strip people of their inheritance.

Really really interesting how people who are against monarchy on the basis of it being un-equal seem to have no problem at all to treat those royals as a type of untermensch who should pay for the sins of their fathers.

And just so that you know; I am not in favor of monarchy. I just think that the rule of law is the overruling principle.

[RandBlade]

It's also so much fun when people try to ignore both history and the law just because they think a system of government is intrinsically wrong. Is the US doing Bill Gates a favor too? And Warren Buffet? Their holdings are not really theirs but the people's because now they don't do anything any longer to justify their claim of ownership? Or do you just suggest a 100% death tax? Oh no, you don't. You actually think it's utterly unfair to strip people of their inheritance.

Really really interesting how people who are against monarchy on the basis of it being un-equal seem to have no problem at all to treat those royals as a type of untermensch who should pay for the sins of their fathers.

And just so that you know; I am not in favor of monarchy. I just think that the rule of law is the overruling principle.

There is a world of difference between the crown and Bill Gates/Warren Buffett etc

Gates and Buffett etc earned their incomes (in this lifetime) as private citizens subject to all rules of the law. They've paid tax on their earnings, anything inherited has been subject to tax and so on.
Crown lands have not been subjected to regular laws. They were not earned or even passed on as inheritance but inherited tax-free based on their role in the government.

Given that these lands have for centuries not been subject to the laws of the land that you and I would have been due to their governmental roles, its fair to view it as government and not personal land.

[Hazir]

There is a world of difference between the crown and Bill Gates/Warren Buffett etc

Gates and Buffett etc earned their incomes (in this lifetime) as private citizens subject to all rules of the law. They've paid tax on their earnings, anything inherited has been subject to tax and so on.
Crown lands have not been subjected to regular laws. They were not earned or even passed on as inheritance but inherited tax-free based on their role in the government.

Given that these lands have for centuries not been subject to the laws of the land that you and I would have been due to their governmental roles, its fair to view it as government and not personal land.

Basically what you're saying that you're cool with the government taxing away people's property as long as they take their time doing so. I also don't understand the need to tax them at all, since they have put their holdings at the disposal of Government and the only effect of them having to pay taxes would be that government would have to give them a higher allowance in order for them to pay taxes.

I dislike jealousy (especially jealousy of the middle class) that forces governments to do something as silly as taxing the incomes of the people that it pays to work as civil servants.

[Steely Glint]

I understand the technicality, but I think it's absurd. They only 'own' those lands by dint of being the government in the past and having all sorts of powers they no longer have (and should never have had). That does not entitle them to personal ownership of the land; IMO it's government land and that's that. The Crown is not doing the UK a 'favor'; quite the other way around.

You're on thin-ice with this line of reasoning, wiggin.

[RandBlade]

Basically what you're saying that you're cool with the government taxing away people's property as long as they take their time doing so.

Yes I'm OK with inheritance tax for that reason. It should be set at such a low rate as to not require people to eg sell their family home - but combined with inflation it should ensure that families don't go centuries without working.

I also don't understand the need to tax them at all, since they have put their holdings at the disposal of Government and the only effect of them having to pay taxes would be that government would have to give them a higher allowance in order for them to pay taxes.

I dislike jealousy (especially jealousy of the middle class) that forces governments to do something as silly as taxing the incomes of the people that it pays to work as civil servants.

Its not jealousy, its consistency. Of course civil servants should be subject to the same laws as everyone else. Lawmakers should not be lawbreakers.

[wiggin]

It's also so much fun when people try to ignore both history and the law just because they think a system of government is intrinsically wrong. Is the US doing Bill Gates a favor too? And Warren Buffet? Their holdings are not really theirs but the people's because now they don't do anything any longer to justify their claim of ownership? Or do you just suggest a 100% death tax? Oh no, you don't. You actually think it's utterly unfair to strip people of their inheritance.

Really really interesting how people who are against monarchy on the basis of it being un-equal seem to have no problem at all to treat those royals as a type of untermensch who should pay for the sins of their fathers.

And just so that you know; I am not in favor of monarchy. I just think that the rule of law is the overruling principle.

I think there's a huge amount of difference between personal property (including that of Messrs Gates and Buffett) and Crown property, which renders your entire critique irrelevant. In fact, I believe that legally the Crown Estate is not considered personal property per se; otherwise it could be sold at will and would be retained upon abdication.

The distinction is that Crown property is acquired and tied to the Crown functioning as a government: something on the order of public domain land or land acquired through taxation/eminent domain. It is not, and never has been, personal property. In my eyes, now that the role of the monarch is largely ceremonial (and certainly little to no political power is vested in the Crown), such property rightly belongs to the government of the UK; certainly it doesn't belong to any individual in the Royal family. (Certainly in the US revolution, Crown lands were appropriated by the new federal government, as I would imagine has happened in most cases where monarchies lost political power.)

You seem to think that Crown lands attach to the person of the royal family rather than to the political power of the UK. I find that odd in the extreme. The analogy in my mind is an elected official who retains title to property gained while in office. In America, we call that corruption.

I have no issue with giving the current royal family a modest stipend, kicking them out, and making them get jobs. In the absence of that unlikely event, I don't think we should view the Crown Estate as anything other than government-owned property.

You're on thin-ice with this line of reasoning, wiggin.

Could you please elaborate? I freely admit that it might not work legally; I am NOT a lawyer, and certainly not an expert in UK law. But from a perspective of right and wrong, I think I'm on solid ground here.

[Loki]

I'm curious to know if the same people here who think that the Windsors are entitled to the Crown Estates also believe that the King of Belgium is entitled to the Congo.

[Aimless]

Could you please elaborate? I freely admit that it might not work legally; I am NOT a lawyer, and certainly not an expert in UK law. But from a perspective of right and wrong, I think I'm on solid ground here.

If nothing else you risk running into the old argument about who took what from whom when, that any land you consider to be legitimately owned today was probably stolen by some sumbitch from some poor savages a few centuries ago.