POLL - Should the UK monarchy now be abolished ? Y/N - all ATS members please contribute

a reply to: Korg Trinity

You are still confused - the "Crown" is not the Monarch. I don't expect you to understand the difference, it is a subtle one, but you should look into it. "The "Crown" is the State and the Monarch is the embodiment of it, but is not actually it, merely acting on it's behalf.

In English jurisprudence, the Crown is the state in all its aspects. In countries that do not have a monarchy, the concept may be expressed as "the State" or "the People", or some political entity, such as "the United States", "the Commonwealth" or "the State of [name]".

Legally, the Crown is a corporation sole that—in the Commonwealth realms, Crown dependencies and any of its provincial or state sub-divisions—represents the legal embodiment of executive, legislative, or judicial governance. It evolved first in the United Kingdom as a separation of the literal crown and property of the nation state from the person and personal property of the monarch. The concept spread through British colonisation, and is now rooted in the legal lexicon of the other 15 independent realms. In this context it should not be confused with any physical crown, such as those of the British state regalia.

The term is also found in expressions such as crown land, which some countries refer to as public land or state land, as well as in some offices such as Minister of the Crown, Crown attorney and Crown prosecutor (other terms being District attorney, State prosecutor or public prosecutor).

Linky Winky

a reply to: pteridine

Such as?

a reply to: pteridine
Some of the assets are property of the monarch and as such would become owned by the state. Others are the private property of the family.
You can of course make the argument about the legitimacy of ownership of those assets but then why stop with the royals.

a reply to: ScepticScot

In fact, the vast majority of Royal assets were handed over to the State in the 1700's in return for a continued "salary" via the Civil list.

For the benefit of those who don't know, this was done to stop Parliament having to hand over cash to the Monarch every time he needed socks, as he didn't have liquid cash. So the State took over the vast majority of the Kings property and in return gives him a slice of the income derived from those assets.

The same arrangement stands today - which is why I am always adamant they don't cost the taxpayer anything - all their costs are carried by their income from the Crown Estate.

a reply to: stumason
Yes but we would still get the income from the crown estates without them so there is still a cost. I actually don't think we get bad value for money from the royals but that still doesn't mean we should keep them in the current form.

a reply to: ScepticScot

True, but that is a "cost" taken out of money that was never paid for by taxpayers anyway - it is rent and other income derived from the business interests of the assets held as the Crown Estate.

And it is good value - compared to the cost of the French Presidency (borne by taxpayers) at £91 million a year comapred to the Monarchies cost of around £35 million.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Yep, guilty as charged. I ooopsed on that one.

a reply to: stumason
The French president is head of state and head of the executive more like the US president so not directly comparable.
Not entirely convinced we need a head of state at all, but if we do an elected power free figure head is fine with me. If we do keep the royals I would remove all remaining constitutional powers.
Obviously all hypothetical as I said above think most people are happy with current set up.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Again, true, I just picked that as it is the closest in size to our country.

A nation such as Germany, with it's largely ceremonial President, it costs them around £40 million and he certainly doesn't have the "pull" that a Monarch does.

They do not make any real decisions or have any direct impact on that country so what does it matter if they stay or go.....The unseen tell them what to do.....The Monarchy only exists as a sideshow for distraction....a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

a reply to: Korg Trinity

So do you believe England is no longer a country? Typical....

Of course England is a country - I'm very proud of the fact that I am English.
I am also very proud of the fact that I am Northern English, or perhaps more precisely North Eastern English.

But I am equally proud of the Union and being British.
I like the fact that all the people of the four constituent nations can come together under one flag.
And Elizabeth, as Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland is our Head of State - in none of her official titles does it mention Queen of England, not one of her many titles does it state that.

She is British and in domestic issues relating to the constituent country's she stays as neutral as possible in order to eliminate any accusations of national favouritism.

She is more British than any of us could ever be, and that includes even the most die-hard Unionists.

Why you find that so hard to understand is beyond me.

I think that would count towards a fail on any paper I ever marked!

Yet still you fail to acknowledge that she is British first and foremost.

I sincerely hope you haven't marked many exam papers.

And really, why can't you understand the simply concept of Crown Land and Crown Estate?

The palace ,Buckingham like Windsor Castle, is owned by the British state. It is not the monarch's personal property, unlike Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the United Kingdom, the Crown Estate is a property portfolio owned by the Crown. The Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom with a portfolio worth £8.1[1] billion, with urban properties valued at around £4 billion, and rural holdings valued at £1.049 billion; and an annual profit of £240.2 million, as at 31 March 2012.

Although nominally belonging to the monarch and inherent with the accession of the throne, the Crown Estate, like the Crown Jewels, is not the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him or her, nor do any revenues, or debts, from the estate accrue to the monarch, as they no longer govern in person. That role has been replaced by the de facto authority of Parliament.

en.wikipedia.org...

In English jurisprudence, the Crown is the state in all its aspects.

en.wikipedia.org...

Be that as it may, the ironic thing is most of this bickering is by people, who agree that we shouldn't abolish our monarchy.

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

No... They still have their place .

Yes.
I think brits should decide for themselves, I couldnt care less really.
But since you are calling for ATSers opinion, I'll tell you IMHO If I was paying taxes I'd be mad they use my money to fund these monarchs.
It's outrageous really, british people are funding these monarchs, while the NHS denies cancer treatment because they are too expensive. Screw them, and put the taxpayers money where it matters.

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

No.

a reply to: payta

Do some research.
As previously mentioned they cost us eaxh 65p a year but put ba k 2.50 each in tax per person.
If we got rid we would be worse off.

a reply to: payta

Fir the 4,995th time, they don't get taxpayer money!!!!!

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Wow what a surprise. ..ats is against the monarchy. ...
Means nothing the majority of us British actually want Them.
So put that in your pipe.

They dont!! I survey many frioends from all backgrounds and status and 60% are in favour of abolishment. So the ATS poll stands up and funnily enough at the same %.

The people of the UK dont want these parasites anymore!

Thankyou to all who contributed to the ATS vote. The final % in favour backs up my own survey as mentioned in the previous post!

Down with the monarchy!!

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

No, it's got no basis in science and is hardly surprising given the audience here.

And you've already been told about your "circle of friends" and I highly doubt you really do have friends from "all backgrounds and statuses". I doubt anyone does for that matter.

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Um. With the greatest respect, your friends and the people on ATS are hardly a cross section of British society where the majority are content with the current role of the monarch in our democracy, as has already been pointed out.

So, what do his future subjects think of the institution Prince George has been born into? Over three quarters (77%) of Britons favour the country remaining a monarchy while under one in five (17%) think it should become a republic. Ipsos MORI has asked this question of the British public 26 times since 1993 and the 77% in favour of a monarchy is four points higher than the average of all those polls, with the highest point of 80% just before the Diamond Jubilee celebrations in May last year. The 17% in favour of Britain becoming a republic is bang on average across those 26 polls.

Source

Regards