Any brits here?

[Tailswipe]

This video gets posted here quite often when people complain about The Queen and her costs. It explains things nicely.

Those arguments seem weak. The land doesn't really belong to them anymore at this stage. France also receives more than double the tourists that the UK does despite having killed Louis.

[Rixis]

At what stage? They've let us use them long enough we're claiming squatters rights?

[Tailswipe]

If they had been an ordinary family paying inheritance tax that land would be long gone or greatly diminished. To say they still own it all now is a bit silly.

[Rixis]

They've been renting us out the land so we can make a shit load of money off it, and it's silly to think if we stop paying rent we get to keep the land?

[Tailswipe]

Its more complex than a simple rent arrangement. If you read the story behind it you will see that the agreement was a tax funded state bailout. If the Monarchy had kept the land they would have gone bankrupt and lost it all then and there.

[ranzino]

For security budget: royals on official duty are of course protected, but a republican representative would too. usually royals are almost always on duty.

[Rixis]

Coulda woulda shoulda.

[Jessicka]

Doesn't rain that much

Being from Manchester, I have to disagree and point out that here if it's not raining, it either has just been, or is just about to. But that's fine, just always carry an umbrella. Always.

I couldn't really care less about the Monarchy, they're net contributors to the economy thanks to American tourists so they're worth paying for I guess. But in terms of any other purposes, they should have been disbanded 200 years ago.

[Kalis]

Its more complex than a simple rent arrangement. If you read the story behind it you will see that the agreement was a tax funded state bailout. If the Monarchy had kept the land they would have gone bankrupt and lost it all then and there.

It is also a lot more complicated than saying the land does not belong to them anymore. It belongs to the Crown, not the Monarchy or the people, which means that if we got rid of the Monarchy then we, the people, have no more claim over it than they do.

Just for the fact that it would result in the biggest legal case in the history of the world, it is probably best not to hand any more money to lawyers and just accept that we have a Monarchy for the forseeable future...unless Charles becomes King, pisses everyone off and goes the way of Charles I.

[AeneasBK]

Those arguments seem weak. The land doesn't really belong to them anymore at this stage. France also receives more than double the tourists that the UK does despite having killed Louis.

They were better at stealing other countries antiquities. Plus they get double the theming bonus in the capital.

[Mace]

I need your opinion about the queen/monarchy. How do you feel about it? Why do you think it is needed? Do you think it has any benefits? Do you think it should be abolished? Tell me your opinion about it.

what's the crazy obssession with benefits, life is not just about getting your benefits at the end of hte month, there is far more value to it.

[klogaroth]

The royal family are a good focal point for nationalism. They're a lot harder to repurpose to meet the needs of any particular group than a flag or other similar symbol.

Flags can sometimes be hi-jacked by ultra nationalists, but it's a lot harder to do that with a person, when that person can call you out.

[Ripster42]

If they had been an ordinary family paying inheritance tax that land would be long gone or greatly diminished. To say they still own it all now is a bit silly.

It's being held by a corporation, so there's no inheritance tax. Literally, "The Crown" is a corporation sole.

[Tailswipe]

It's being held by a corporation, so there's no inheritance tax. Literally, "The Crown" is a corporation sole.

Brits don't pay inheritance tax on their corporate holdings?

It is also a lot more complicated than saying the land does not belong to them anymore. It belongs to the Crown, not the Monarchy or the people, which means that if we got rid of the Monarchy then we, the people, have no more claim over it than they do.

Just for the fact that it would result in the biggest legal case in the history of the world, it is probably best not to hand any more money to lawyers and just accept that we have a Monarchy for the forseeable future...unless Charles becomes King, pisses everyone off and goes the way of Charles I.

If the will is there it won't be a big mess. Country's legislate land seizures all the time. If you are restructuring your entire government to remove the Queen then it shouldn't be hard to slip the necessary legislation into your new constitution to strip the crown of its assets and transfer them to the new government.

[Ripster42]

Brits don't pay inheritance tax on their corporate holdings?



If the will is there it won't be a big mess. Country's legislate land seizures all the time. If you are restructuring your entire government to remove the Queen then it shouldn't be hard to slip the necessary legislation into your new constitution to strip the crown of its assets and transfer them to the new government.

Corporate holdings? They control the funds of the crown because they inherit the position of CEO of the corporation. Legally they're not inheriting anything but the job AFAIK.

Edit: In regards to the crown's holdings.

[Kalis]

If the will is there it won't be a big mess. Country's legislate land seizures all the time. If you are restructuring your entire government to remove the Queen then it shouldn't be hard to slip the necessary legislation into your new constitution to strip the crown of its assets and transfer them to the new government.

And they would take it to the Courts to fight. We would have had to descended into a period of anarchy in order for there not to be any form of legal redress, in which case we would have more to worry about than the Crown.

No Government is just going to seize Crown assets and declare them state property, they would have to come to some sort of compromise with the ex-Monarch, just as the previous Government came to compromise when the income was transferred into the Treasury.

[Tyrianth]

Not a big fan of the fact we still use her likeness on money here in Canada.

Well she is the head of state and Queen of Canada.

[MagicMert]

I don't think its needed but at the same time I enjoy it, its sort of our thing just as much as well maintained castles are. If we were to get rid of them id not care very much but im also willing to pay that what 70 pence a year to keep them (I mean that wont even buy you a can of drink anymore) as a sort of symbol for the country not to mention the tourism money they bring into the country.

[lazypeon100]

im british and il tell u now dnt visit england unless u like tea and crumpets and rain

Jokes on you, I like all of those things!

... would love to actually visit at some point.

OT: I have nothing against the monarchy, though I don't live there either.