Act of Settlement - shemale right to succesion in the UK

[MYstIC G]

Compulsory purchase?

 

[Ormorof]

Trem's been messing with thread titles again.

aha and i thought i had just been an idiot, woop woop i am not an idiot

at least you have no proof that i am! (well maybe you do but i dont want to see it!)

 

[DaGaffer]

If there had never been a monarchy, yes it would be bollocks, but as there is it is simple common sense. If the monarchy was disolved tommorow - all of that estate would remain with them - SO no, it isn't bollocks. My point is simple - depsite a lot of peoples views to the contrary, the monarchy don't really cost the tax payer a bean, because it would cost a hell of a lot more for the government (nee tax payer) to buy and administer or rent the properties from the Crown Estate, which given that in owns half of central London, would be necessary. If that estate was in other private hands, the governement would have to folk our hundreds of millions of pounds more every year, rather than paying the queen an annual duty. I can't put it simpler than that.

Why would it remain with them? The Crown estates are a function of being the monarch, there's nothing to say if we turned into a republic that the Windsors keep all that land (that would be pretty unique in the history of dissolved monarchies tbh). As for whether it would cost the government more to deal with the Crown Estates without a monarchy, I very much doubt you've got anything to back that assertion up. You don't know a. the value of the land, b. what the government would do with it c. the incremental cost to the state of paying rents to private landlords on former crown estates (minus the windfall of selling the land in the first place), so basically you're making shit up.

 

[ford prefect]

Why would it remain with them? The Crown estates are a function of being the monarch, there's nothing to say if we turned into a republic that the Windsors keep all that land (that would be pretty unique in the history of dissolved monarchies tbh). As for whether it would cost the government more to deal with the Crown Estates without a monarchy, I very much doubt you've got anything to back that assertion up. You don't know a. the value of the land, b. what the government would do with it c. the incremental cost to the state of paying rents to private landlords on former crown estates (minus the windfall of selling the land in the first place), so basically you're making shit up.

You are assuming that removing the monarchy is as straight forward as Alan Sugar pointing at them and saying "You're Fired!". In truth, whichever monarch is reighning at the time, they would have a substancive legal claim on the Crown Estate and would be looking, if not in its entirety, certainly a large part of it. It certainly wouldn't go to the government; the Crown State Commissioners would see to that. You can't honestly think that removing a Monarch, which no government has the right to do anyway, would be a cheap and straightforward affair?

Again a little common sense here - real estate worth in excess of £4.5 billion, in exchange for £35 million per year is incredibly cheap - you don't have to be a property expert to realise that that is actually rediculously cheap by any standards, especially when out of the £35 million, income tax is removed and goes back into the government pot. The crown estate makes £300 million every year, which after the royal income, goes to the treasury. So as it stands, not only do the government get use of that real estate, but they also get roughtly £250 - 260 million per year as well. That is a pretty good deal in anyones terms.

Incidentally - I don't "make shit up". I find life difficult enough to cope with, without adding more to it.

 

[DaGaffer]

You are assuming that removing the monarchy is as straight forward as Alan Sugar pointing at them and saying "You're Fired!".

It is. We just shoot them. I find the the tried and tested methods of removing monarchs are the best.