So what kind of King will Charles be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No the Crown Estate belongs to the government/people of the UK. The vast personal holdings are personal property.

The Crown Estate should go into a national trust and be managed to benefit the citizens not Charles and his collection of dippy family members. His personal property that he inherited should be taxed like everyone else.

The bigger issue beyond avoiding taxes and hiding vast sums of wealth is the monarch’s ability to consent to legislation. This isn’t a ceremonial role as the Queens lawyers reviewed and engaged in back room lobbying on over 60 pieces of legislation. This legislation often involved taxation or other policies where the Crown had a personal financial interest.

There is one up now involving legislation in Scotland to freeze rents but now King Charles lawyers are going to review it/suggest changes as KC has tenants in Scotland. Scotland has been pushing for freedom of information type stuff to bring transparency to these back room deals in favor of the monarch. They make a big show about Charles not going to an environmental conference but don’t think for a second that they aren’t politically involved when their money is involved. Queen Elizabeth was as guilty of this as Charles will be.

No, the government doesn't own the Crown Estates. You need to read up on it.

Do you Louis Alphonse de Bourbon living in Versailles? Part of getting rid of a monarchy is seizing crown property

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No the Crown Estate belongs to the government/people of the UK. The vast personal holdings are personal property.

The Crown Estate should go into a national trust and be managed to benefit the citizens not Charles and his collection of dippy family members. His personal property that he inherited should be taxed like everyone else.

The bigger issue beyond avoiding taxes and hiding vast sums of wealth is the monarch’s ability to consent to legislation. This isn’t a ceremonial role as the Queens lawyers reviewed and engaged in back room lobbying on over 60 pieces of legislation. This legislation often involved taxation or other policies where the Crown had a personal financial interest.

There is one up now involving legislation in Scotland to freeze rents but now King Charles lawyers are going to review it/suggest changes as KC has tenants in Scotland. Scotland has been pushing for freedom of information type stuff to bring transparency to these back room deals in favor of the monarch. They make a big show about Charles not going to an environmental conference but don’t think for a second that they aren’t politically involved when their money is involved. Queen Elizabeth was as guilty of this as Charles will be.

No, the government doesn't own the Crown Estates. You need to read up on it.

Do you Louis Alphonse de Bourbon living in Versailles? Part of getting rid of a monarchy is seizing crown property

But you think the government already owns it, so why seize it? But, good luck with your revolution. It's not a popular stance so I'm sure they can use your help when it starts.

[Anonymous]

I don’t see how the monarchy can afford the upkeep of Windsor or Buckingham Palace. I thought they said QEII only owned two private properties, Balmoral and Sandringham.

Also found

“ Rather than being privately owned by Queen Elizabeth II, Buckingham Palace is held in a trust managed by the Crown Estate. The trust ensures that the property gets passed down to future generations of the royal family without any issues.

The Crown Estate, explained

The Crown Estate is a collection of properties—not a single piece of land or property. All of them belong to the royal family as a "corporation sole," or a single incorporated building occupied by an individual. This makes the Crown Estate the sovereign's public estate, which is a strategic move on the royal family's part. Holding properties this way helps keep them out of reach for the government while also helping the royal family avoid paying taxes on private property.”

[Anonymous]

The monarchy can be abolished by referendum. The Crown Estate assets can be removed from the trust when the monarchy is abolished. The assets can be sold by the government or placed in a national trust. The personal assets can be taxed.

The question isn’t really if, it’s when a referendum will be put forward. Right now 60% of younger voters and POC voters regardless of age would not vote to keep the monarchy. Among older white voters it’s more favorable but it remains to be seen whether Charles will be able to hold that group. The die hard royalists are a smaller group.

[Anonymous]

MM's new podcast about Asian hate is timely, given the publication of Wu's book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The monarchy can be abolished by referendum. The Crown Estate assets can be removed from the trust when the monarchy is abolished. The assets can be sold by the government or placed in a national trust. The personal assets can be taxed.

The question isn’t really if, it’s when a referendum will be put forward. Right now 60% of younger voters and POC voters regardless of age would not vote to keep the monarchy. Among older white voters it’s more favorable but it remains to be seen whether Charles will be able to hold that group. The die hard royalists are a smaller group.

So a fraction of the voters feel a certain way. They are far from a majority.

[Anonymous]

Prior to the Queen’s death only 55% of all groups supported the monarchy. This isn’t a big majority and a portion of those in support would be conditional on the monarch being Elizabeth. Charles doesn’t have a lot of room for error and he has some problems coming up in the next year.

1. Commonwealth nations dropping out
2. Scotland
3.Wales
4. Harry’s book
5. Recession and inflation bringing greater focus on government funding and tax priorities
6. Andrew who knows what else will come out
7. Calls for transparency in monarch’s role in lobbying and legislation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prior to the Queen’s death only 55% of all groups supported the monarchy. This isn’t a big majority and a portion of those in support would be conditional on the monarch being Elizabeth. Charles doesn’t have a lot of room for error and he has some problems coming up in the next year.

1. Commonwealth nations dropping out
2. Scotland
3.Wales
4. Harry’s book
5. Recession and inflation bringing greater focus on government funding and tax priorities
6. Andrew who knows what else will come out
7. Calls for transparency in monarch’s role in lobbying and legislation

Its more like 55% are “very favorable” but only 25% want it abolished, so quite a bit of ways to go. And this is nothing really new.
“The relative stability of the age gap reflects the fact that the older they become, the more likely people are to feel it is "very important" to have a monarchy. In 1994, only 22% of those born in the 1960s felt that it was "very important" to have a monarchy, ten points below 32% figure among the population as a whole. Now, in contrast, 38% are of this view, seven points above the proportion among all adults.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/public-support-for-the-monarchy-is-lowest-among-young-britons-but-thats-nothing-new

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prior to the Queen’s death only 55% of all groups supported the monarchy. This isn’t a big majority and a portion of those in support would be conditional on the monarch being Elizabeth. Charles doesn’t have a lot of room for error and he has some problems coming up in the next year.

1. Commonwealth nations dropping out
2. Scotland
3.Wales
4. Harry’s book
5. Recession and inflation bringing greater focus on government funding and tax priorities
6. Andrew who knows what else will come out
7. Calls for transparency in monarch’s role in lobbying and legislation

Its more like 55% are “very favorable” but only 25% want it abolished, so quite a bit of ways to go. And this is nothing really new.
“The relative stability of the age gap reflects the fact that the older they become, the more likely people are to feel it is "very important" to have a monarchy. In 1994, only 22% of those born in the 1960s felt that it was "very important" to have a monarchy, ten points below 32% figure among the population as a whole. Now, in contrast, 38% are of this view, seven points above the proportion among all adults.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/public-support-for-the-monarchy-is-lowest-among-young-britons-but-thats-nothing-new

55% did not view the monarchy as very important! It was a 4 point scale with very important, quite important, not important and abolish it. Only 31% viewed it as very important. This was in 2021 with the Queen not Charles and Camilla. It’s highly unlikely that they will earn an increase in support and highly likely they will lose support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prior to the Queen’s death only 55% of all groups supported the monarchy. This isn’t a big majority and a portion of those in support would be conditional on the monarch being Elizabeth. Charles doesn’t have a lot of room for error and he has some problems coming up in the next year.

1. Commonwealth nations dropping out
2. Scotland
3.Wales
4. Harry’s book
5. Recession and inflation bringing greater focus on government funding and tax priorities
6. Andrew who knows what else will come out
7. Calls for transparency in monarch’s role in lobbying and legislation

Its more like 55% are “very favorable” but only 25% want it abolished, so quite a bit of ways to go. And this is nothing really new.
“The relative stability of the age gap reflects the fact that the older they become, the more likely people are to feel it is "very important" to have a monarchy. In 1994, only 22% of those born in the 1960s felt that it was "very important" to have a monarchy, ten points below 32% figure among the population as a whole. Now, in contrast, 38% are of this view, seven points above the proportion among all adults.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/public-support-for-the-monarchy-is-lowest-among-young-britons-but-thats-nothing-new

55% did not view the monarchy as very important! It was a 4 point scale with very important, quite important, not important and abolish it. Only 31% viewed it as very important. This was in 2021 with the Queen not Charles and Camilla. It’s highly unlikely that they will earn an increase in support and highly likely they will lose support.

We shall see!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prior to the Queen’s death only 55% of all groups supported the monarchy. This isn’t a big majority and a portion of those in support would be conditional on the monarch being Elizabeth. Charles doesn’t have a lot of room for error and he has some problems coming up in the next year.

1. Commonwealth nations dropping out
2. Scotland
3.Wales
4. Harry’s book
5. Recession and inflation bringing greater focus on government funding and tax priorities
6. Andrew who knows what else will come out
7. Calls for transparency in monarch’s role in lobbying and legislation

Its more like 55% are “very favorable” but only 25% want it abolished, so quite a bit of ways to go. And this is nothing really new.
“The relative stability of the age gap reflects the fact that the older they become, the more likely people are to feel it is "very important" to have a monarchy. In 1994, only 22% of those born in the 1960s felt that it was "very important" to have a monarchy, ten points below 32% figure among the population as a whole. Now, in contrast, 38% are of this view, seven points above the proportion among all adults.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/public-support-for-the-monarchy-is-lowest-among-young-britons-but-thats-nothing-new

55% did not view the monarchy as very important! It was a 4 point scale with very important, quite important, not important and abolish it. Only 31% viewed it as very important. This was in 2021 with the Queen not Charles and Camilla. It’s highly unlikely that they will earn an increase in support and highly likely they will lose support.

55% said very or quite important. What do you think it says? A minority want it abolished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prior to the Queen’s death only 55% of all groups supported the monarchy. This isn’t a big majority and a portion of those in support would be conditional on the monarch being Elizabeth. Charles doesn’t have a lot of room for error and he has some problems coming up in the next year.

1. Commonwealth nations dropping out
2. Scotland
3.Wales
4. Harry’s book
5. Recession and inflation bringing greater focus on government funding and tax priorities
6. Andrew who knows what else will come out
7. Calls for transparency in monarch’s role in lobbying and legislation

Its more like 55% are “very favorable” but only 25% want it abolished, so quite a bit of ways to go. And this is nothing really new.
“The relative stability of the age gap reflects the fact that the older they become, the more likely people are to feel it is "very important" to have a monarchy. In 1994, only 22% of those born in the 1960s felt that it was "very important" to have a monarchy, ten points below 32% figure among the population as a whole. Now, in contrast, 38% are of this view, seven points above the proportion among all adults.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/public-support-for-the-monarchy-is-lowest-among-young-britons-but-thats-nothing-new

55% did not view the monarchy as very important! It was a 4 point scale with very important, quite important, not important and abolish it. Only 31% viewed it as very important. This was in 2021 with the Queen not Charles and Camilla. It’s highly unlikely that they will earn an increase in support and highly likely they will lose support.

Rewatching The Crown, it occurred to me that it's kind of gross that Charles ended up marrying Camila in the end. So she becomes Queen instead of Charles and Diana getting on better and Diana being queen now. Not to mention very likely being alive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prior to the Queen’s death only 55% of all groups supported the monarchy. This isn’t a big majority and a portion of those in support would be conditional on the monarch being Elizabeth. Charles doesn’t have a lot of room for error and he has some problems coming up in the next year.

1. Commonwealth nations dropping out
2. Scotland
3.Wales
4. Harry’s book
5. Recession and inflation bringing greater focus on government funding and tax priorities
6. Andrew who knows what else will come out
7. Calls for transparency in monarch’s role in lobbying and legislation

Its more like 55% are “very favorable” but only 25% want it abolished, so quite a bit of ways to go. And this is nothing really new.
“The relative stability of the age gap reflects the fact that the older they become, the more likely people are to feel it is "very important" to have a monarchy. In 1994, only 22% of those born in the 1960s felt that it was "very important" to have a monarchy, ten points below 32% figure among the population as a whole. Now, in contrast, 38% are of this view, seven points above the proportion among all adults.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/public-support-for-the-monarchy-is-lowest-among-young-britons-but-thats-nothing-new

55% did not view the monarchy as very important! It was a 4 point scale with very important, quite important, not important and abolish it. Only 31% viewed it as very important. This was in 2021 with the Queen not Charles and Camilla. It’s highly unlikely that they will earn an increase in support and highly likely they will lose support.

Rewatching The Crown, it occurred to me that it's kind of gross that Charles ended up marrying Camila in the end. So she becomes Queen instead of Charles and Diana getting on better and Diana being queen now. Not to mention very likely being alive.

I had the opposite take from the show - that I had more sympathy for Charles than before

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No the Crown Estate belongs to the government/people of the UK. The vast personal holdings are personal property.

The Crown Estate should go into a national trust and be managed to benefit the citizens not Charles and his collection of dippy family members. His personal property that he inherited should be taxed like everyone else.

The bigger issue beyond avoiding taxes and hiding vast sums of wealth is the monarch’s ability to consent to legislation. This isn’t a ceremonial role as the Queens lawyers reviewed and engaged in back room lobbying on over 60 pieces of legislation. This legislation often involved taxation or other policies where the Crown had a personal financial interest.

There is one up now involving legislation in Scotland to freeze rents but now King Charles lawyers are going to review it/suggest changes as KC has tenants in Scotland. Scotland has been pushing for freedom of information type stuff to bring transparency to these back room deals in favor of the monarch. They make a big show about Charles not going to an environmental conference but don’t think for a second that they aren’t politically involved when their money is involved. Queen Elizabeth was as guilty of this as Charles will be.

No, the government doesn't own the Crown Estates. You need to read up on it.

Do you Louis Alphonse de Bourbon living in Versailles? Part of getting rid of a monarchy is seizing crown property

Even if the government “seizes” the Crown Estate (they won’t) William as Duke of Cornwall will still be the largest private landowner in the UK. The BRF will be just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prior to the Queen’s death only 55% of all groups supported the monarchy. This isn’t a big majority and a portion of those in support would be conditional on the monarch being Elizabeth. Charles doesn’t have a lot of room for error and he has some problems coming up in the next year.

1. Commonwealth nations dropping out
2. Scotland
3.Wales
4. Harry’s book
5. Recession and inflation bringing greater focus on government funding and tax priorities
6. Andrew who knows what else will come out
7. Calls for transparency in monarch’s role in lobbying and legislation

Its more like 55% are “very favorable” but only 25% want it abolished, so quite a bit of ways to go. And this is nothing really new.
“The relative stability of the age gap reflects the fact that the older they become, the more likely people are to feel it is "very important" to have a monarchy. In 1994, only 22% of those born in the 1960s felt that it was "very important" to have a monarchy, ten points below 32% figure among the population as a whole. Now, in contrast, 38% are of this view, seven points above the proportion among all adults.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/public-support-for-the-monarchy-is-lowest-among-young-britons-but-thats-nothing-new

55% did not view the monarchy as very important! It was a 4 point scale with very important, quite important, not important and abolish it. Only 31% viewed it as very important. This was in 2021 with the Queen not Charles and Camilla. It’s highly unlikely that they will earn an increase in support and highly likely they will lose support.

Rewatching The Crown, it occurred to me that it's kind of gross that Charles ended up marrying Camila in the end. So she becomes Queen instead of Charles and Diana getting on better and Diana being queen now. Not to mention very likely being alive.

I had the opposite take from the show - that I had more sympathy for Charles than before

I had more sympathy for Fictional Charles (up from none for Actual Charles), but perhaps paradoxically, that sympathy also gave me more enthusiasm for ending the monarchy.

I also hope Anne is like Fictional Anne.