From this moment on, I am to be addressed as Pope Fenderson Papps II.
Thank you for your consideration.
]]>The Queen can have a free seat on my lap and can sit there as long as she wants.
I also believe the Queen should be head of my campaign for free national viagra. Now this a way to get real exposure:
Your Queen lover,
Prof Scrub
If the Queen has no real political power, then she can be done away with withour replacement.
But if the Queen has real political power, the democratic argument must be for her removal from power.
and if the latter is the case, why cite Bush and Chirac for your examples of presidents. You could cite Ivan the Terrible, King Leopold of Belgium or King John as examples of kings that one would rather not be ruled by. It wouldn’t, in itself, be much of an argument.
Anyway, I have already dealt with the monarchy here at The Sharpener
]]>No, thank you.
]]>This sounds rather like Sue Townsend’s portrayal of the future, in which the royals have been done away with via referendum and the palaces privatised. Charles et al are living on a council estate. The free market in action.
]]>Although this was the case for nearly 200 years, it stopped with the 1952 Civil Lists Act. Since then, the money generated by the Crown Estates is legally the property of the Exchequer.
So Parliament could, if it so chose, abolish the Civil List *without* having to seize the Royals’ property (since the Crown Estates are no longer the Royals’ property). The monarch’s only sanction would be to refuse assent to the bill. Since this would lead to a constitutional crisis and ultimately a republic, the monarch would be most unlikely to refuse assent.
In case you were wondering about Brenda and Charlie’s welfare, don’t worry – their privately owned estates already generate large incomes (which they certainly don’t hand over to the Treasury).
]]>I.E. they would set up a corporation/private company [Let’s call it: “The Firm, Ltd.”] and pay taxes, as normal, but ALL the crown’s present possessions would constitute The Firm’s assests.
So that rather than the monarchy handing over all its’ money to the state, and getting an ex-gratia payment (the Civil LIst) as at present, they would operate as a normal private-enterprise corporation.
All calculations that I’ve seen – admittedly VERY back-of-envelope – suggest they would do much better, financially, than they do at present.
Interesting ……
]]>I actually quite like your idea. I’m certainly no abolitionist – I believe that the monarchy serves a purpose and I think we too often break from our traditions. But I see no reason why they should be supported at the public’s expense.
Back in the good old days when the monarch really mattered, one of the main qualities by which a king was measured was his ability to live off his own resources; taxation was considered to be a disgraceful liberty (in the other sense) that could usually only be justified for war.
I can’t see why an elected but entirely powerless head of state is any better than a hereditary but entirely powerless head of state, but if we must become a republic I think your solution is far better regicide. That sort of thing is fit only for savages (Puritans, Bolsheviks, The French)!
]]>I suppose being Queen of England implies being a custodian of sorts, so being the custodian of a particular tradition or talent might also warrant regal nomenclature.
]]>