The Duchy of Cornwall for example which William has inherited tax free also is more than a large estate. It has quasi local governmental powers and some central governmental powers and Charles was consulted on legislation which it might impact. Not normal at all.
Time to get rid of the Monarchy?
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
Kupe Navigator
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,848
Only thing I have seen is that: royals bad they don't do anything but be rich.
Isn't really true. They are center of British soft power and... let's be real contrary to what you may think being a royal Isn't a comfortable job as you may think. Sure you have money but it is at the cost of your privacy and freedom. You are put in a fishbowl for everyone to see and are forced to act in front of everyone all the time.
I agree with this video
Would you wanna be a royal but in exchange be put in a spotlight all the time with limited freedom? Royals are BORN to be a symbol with little choice. Even if you want to be something else you have little choice.
I for one would hate to be a royal because I know I would make a terrible royal.
Yeah, and I would use the power to end the system.
There have been plenty of links on the things that they've done. At this point I can only assume that you're willingly ignoring them.
Kupe Navigator
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,848
For what? All you have left is crappy politicians like Boris and Truss.
Kupe Navigator
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,848
Honestly all this cray of end the monarchy is like saying "close Disney! They make crappy movie and CEO of Disney shouldn't be having that much money! Give Disney's money to public funds!"
I will say that modern British monarchy is doing exactly same job as what Hollywood is doing for America- spreading a soft power. And like Hollywood, British monarchy has done few shares of mistakes and scandals but really would you say "let's close Hollywood! And fire all celebrities! They ain't worth penny and are old system that doesn't keep up with times!:
I will say that modern British monarchy is doing exactly same job as what Hollywood is doing for America- spreading a soft power. And like Hollywood, British monarchy has done few shares of mistakes and scandals but really would you say "let's close Hollywood! And fire all celebrities! They ain't worth penny and are old system that doesn't keep up with times!:
We stan a capitalist monarchist
Kupe Navigator
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,848
Honestly celebrities in Hollywood have done much more worse things and yet I don't hear people in US calling to cancel all of Hollywood. So why should British monarchs be abolished? Some of these celebrities are much more wealthier than royals. (Erza Miller alone makes Prince Andrew look like saint)
unlike some may think here I do NOT think British royals are divine figure. I put them on same line as many hollywood celebrities.
Different is that UNLIKE many of these hollywood celebrities who chose their career many royals had no choice in their job.
unlike some may think here I do NOT think British royals are divine figure. I put them on same line as many hollywood celebrities.
Different is that UNLIKE many of these hollywood celebrities who chose their career many royals had no choice in their job.
Last edited:
Unless you mean some "celebrity" who also happens to be a banker or businessman, I don't see who of those would be as wealthy as the british royals. Know of holywood celebrities worth tens of billions of dollars?
Celebrities involved in scandal can lose their career, again unlike royals who at worst are told to do even less for their massive paycheck (see Andrew).
Ezra Miller? Seriously? His career is over, and he never had much of it either - nor money in the adjacent three orders of magnitude we are talking about.
Celebrities involved in scandal can lose their career, again unlike royals who at worst are told to do even less for their massive paycheck (see Andrew).
Ezra Miller? Seriously? His career is over, and he never had much of it either - nor money in the adjacent three orders of magnitude we are talking about.
Kupe Navigator
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,848
Both Prince Andrew and Miller done a creepy things and yet both are gotten off scott free and not even serving a time in prison.
Yes his career MIGHT be over ( I have yet to hear his flash movie being canceled like batgirl movie this year) But he hasn't been arrested and is serving time in jail. His career being over is equivalent of Prince Andrew being stripped of his military title- a slap to their wrist.
Even when he is nowhere wealthy as royals but because he is seen as inclusive or some other bullcrap he has yet to serve time in jail.
And yet I hear no one calling to end Hollywood.
I do not see how the comparison to Hollywood is relevant. There are many groups of people who manage to get spectacularly rich under the current system, but not many that we give political power to by virtue of birth. It is the latter we are talking about here.
Kupe Navigator
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,848
but royals don't really have that much political powers. Sure they COULD overstep their boundary as constitutional monarchy and act against Parliament and Prime minister but it would cause so much outrage that it just isn't worth it. Especially when royalty popularity isn't hot as it used to be if Charles or any other monarch did that it would mean end of their system. So they won't. British royals only survived by their popularity and I really doubt Charles or William is dumb enough to completely undo what Elizabeth fought so hard to achieve- keep British royalty relevant and popular enough.
as popular saying goes "A British monarch reigns, but does not rule"
that is key difference from absolute monarch. They longer have powers like King Henry VII and Henry VIII did in the past.
How much power did Queen Elizabeth II actually have? And will King Charles III have more or less?
Does a monarch have any actual power in 2022? The reality is the role of Queen Elizabeth II and King Charles III is largely ceremonial, experts say.
www.usatoday.com
We keep saying they have a lot. They may not use the bigger levers, but do use some without any scrutiny. Wikipedia has a pretty comprehensive page on the royal prerogative:
The scope of the royal prerogative is difficult to determine due to the uncodified nature of the constitution. It is clear that the existence and extent of the power is a matter of the common law of England, making the courts the final arbiter of whether a particular type of prerogative exists or not. Nevertheless, certain prerogative powers have been widely acknowledged and accepted over time, while others have fallen out of use.
The power to dissolve parliament is "perhaps the most important residual prerogative exercised personally by the sovereign, and represents the greatest potential for controversy."
The monarch could force the dissolution of Parliament through a refusal of royal assent;
The appointment of the prime minister is also, theoretically, governed by the royal prerogative. Technically the monarch may appoint as prime minister anyone he wants to appoint
The most noted prerogative power that affects the judicial system is the prerogative of mercy, which has two elements: the granting of pardons and the granting of nolle prosequi.
The royal prerogative is in much use in the realm of foreign affairs. It is the monarch who recognises foreign states, issues declarations of war and peace, and forms international treaties.
Monarchs also have power to exercise their prerogative over the granting of honours, the regulation of the armed forces and ecclesiastical appointments.
The monarch also exerts a certain influence power on his or her weekly and closed conversations with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
As I understand it, the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are estates held in trust by the state for the use of the monarch and the heir to prove an independent income for them. That's why there's even a minister with the job of being the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I'd be more concerned with why the Queen paid no inheritance tax on the Queen Mum's private will.
Most of those powers are exercised on the Prime Minister's "advice", and would instead be carried out by a president instead.
Kupe Navigator
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,848
Just because they COULD dose not mean they will. If they did it will cause constitutional nightmare that not even Tories want. after all why would they want a monarch that will not listen to their PM when they are basically in charge of Parliament for now.
Monarch can do what Parliament allows them to do. and Parliament both Conservative and Labor will NOT stand by when it ignores their will and do what ever hell it want.
Don't believe me? Look at what happened with James II. During that time politics were much MUCH less democratic and yet he couldn't keep his job as king once he acted against popular opinion of parliament .
Only if we chose to make it so.
Having power means being able to do something, not that one will.
Kupe Navigator
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,848
Exactly and Charles isn't dumb enough to exercise that power. He isn't popular and even less popular than his mother. And Queen Elizabeth never exercised that power with even more popularity. So what makes you think Charles or William would ever will?
Kupe Navigator
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,848
Oh? In the history of modern British royals who were tyrants? Who after Queen Victoria were tyrants? Only one that I can think of that cones to close is Edward VIII... who I think royal families think of him as a shameful past.
Certainly King George VI wasn't a tyrant nor Queen Elizabeth II.
And for future generations of royalty these two figures will be used as a role model in which they need to replicate. Charles and William for sure will be using Elizabeth as a role model.
Similar threads
- Poll
