Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows • Hacker News Board

Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows

#691

Post by fennecfoxy » Tue, Sep 20, 2022, 3:54 PM UTC

austinjp wrote: post #635

fennecfoxy wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not of the UK, but I live here. And the people chose for it to be this way after they beheaded Charles I. If enough people wanted to dissolve the monarchy then it would happen, though I'm sure without as much bloodshed as in 1649. Of course it's weird and strange and old fashioned, the entirety of the UK is built from the foundations on such things. Your love for brick over modern steel and glass, the countless c…

Indeed. I'm just curious about why people aren't ready to say the monarchy should go. All the plus points would seem to be achievable by other means. The negative points are extremely distasteful to me - which won't come as much surprise :) Support for the monarchy is associated with older age groups [1]. Perhaps as time passes, those who are opposed or ambivalent will be in the majority. Maybe 40-50 years from now?…

Totally agree. My point is view at the moment is that QEII was the last true royal, ie she had such close ties to the monarchy of old.

I think from KCIII onwards things will start to change as it becomes apparent that he and his descendants aren't really representative of the "the good old days".

Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows

#692

Post by fennecfoxy » Tue, Sep 20, 2022, 3:57 PM UTC

austinjp wrote: post #624

fennecfoxy wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sovereign grant isn't "gorging on the public's teat" https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0 it's pretty much plain inheritance. In fact even more restricted because much of the royal family holdings cannot be sold and must be passed down. Sure, it's a bloody violent history of kings and empires that got them there but the same could be said for much of the modern world. Is America going to hand back ALL land to Native…

> Sovereign grant isn't "gorging on the public's teat" Hmm. Charles will be paying zero inheritance tax on his multi-million inheritance. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/king-charles...

Oh yeah for sure. They don't _have_ to pay taxes, that's codified legally. QEII paid income and other taxes by personal choice, but they're not bound to.

Whether that's fair or not/applicable in the modern world is totally a discussion to be had by the public. Though perhaps the monarchy being so up-front and visible contributes to this.

Meanwhile companies sit in Ireland/Malta/Switzerland/etc and go on tax dodge binges and the public don't bat an eye. People seem to have a very short memory/modern world is so complicated we have to resort to apathy to handle it; remember the Panama papers? Was anything _really_ done about those?

Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows

#693

Post by fennecfoxy » Tue, Sep 20, 2022, 4:06 PM UTC

bogomipz wrote: post #611

fennecfoxy wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on revenue from the crown holdings, since the sovereign grant only represents a small percentage of overall revenues, much of the "public paid" money is paid back by that surplus being made available for public spending. See: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sovereign-grant-a... "In exchange for this public support, The Queen surrenders the revenue from The Crown Estate to the government. Over the las…

The Sovereign Grant is itself is a taxpayer-funded payment. The money comes from the treasury and is funded by taxpayers. See: https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-57559653 and Here are some of the key figures from the royal accounts for 2020-2021: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-29/how-much-...

Well not really and that article clearly shows that is only really in part taxpayer funded.

The RF owns the Crown Estate. Of this estate the UK government sits on/uses part of that estate. Therefore they're essentially paying "rent" for what they're using.

However it used to be that the RF received all of the income from the Crown Estate. The SG was an agreement that they would forgo taking all of the income and only a portion of it; the rest goes to public spending.

Hell, they even had to invoke a provision to make up the amount should it fall: "A decrease in the Crown Estate's rental income during the COVID-19 pandemic led to the first use of the provision that prevents the value of the Sovereign Grant from falling, with the Treasury committing to make up the shortfall.".

It's a weird system for sure. The treasury pays out rent for all Royal Holdings that are being used by the goverment/public. Then 15%~ of that rent (plus income from other parts of the holdings) is available to the RF as a part of the SG. The rest goes back to the public.

There is a valid point made that security isn't included in these costs/returns, though. But at the end of the day, it's because the RF owns huge swathes of land and businesses, etc that they are paid. Sure they could be stripped of them but that sets a precedent.