Not looking good for Lilibet

I should add that I’d never behave that way IRL.

The making fun of people part. Not the ranting. Coworkers at my new job have already commented about my propensity to verbally assault anyone in earshot when I’m not happy.

totally forgot... that's one of the other superior qualities of polymer bills.

the blow doesn't get stuck in the fibers

On one hand if you are doing something as expensive and wasteful as blow who the fuck cares, but anyone who has done blow knows you have thought about licking that bill to get that dust because coke.

that's teh other thing, you can sanitize that bill first!

but yeah, I've ripped more than a few rails off of party girls' ass cheeks too.

King Charles doesn't have to pay inheritance tax on the Queen's private estate worth more than $750 million (Business Insider)

This is not the government-controlled "Crown Estate." This is the family's private "Duchy of Lancaster" estate. (Perhaps some anglophiles can tell us why they need two.)

From the article:

I can live with that, then. If they're never allowed to sell it, then it's "worth" is more theoretical than anything.

Yea, all those theoretical properties in which people can live without having to pay rent or a mortgage. All the theoretical fruits and vegetables from those properties as well as livestock that they can eat. All the theoretical expensive cloth and clothing that is handed down to each generation. It’s a good thing they have the other income to support the staff that will maintain, cultivate, and sew all those things they would never have to buy.

Wish I had that kind of theoretical wealth.

Are they allowed to collect rent, tourist fees, and other profits from it?

Why should they have it in the first place?

rule 34 strikes again.

I assume since you're asking, then answer is yes?

I believe the idea is to ensure the monarchy remains financially independent and thus harder for governments or private entities to intimidate or bribe? Which I'm fine with. It's a better setup than the we've got for most elected officials and high ranking bureaucrats right now, where their votes and their agendas belong to the highest bidder.

On a surface level, I can't help but feel bad.

But then I remember how the Crown stomped out the independence movement in Kenya about a year into E²'s reign and how they are still in possession of many artifacts they looted from their various colonies and all all of them are racist as shit. And then I don't...you know...care.

With that said, I agree that they should've just let Charles marry Camilla way back when and been done with it. Everyone would've been happier than way, most especially Diana Spencer.

This really is a drawback (and a big one) to the way the monarchy evolved. The idea is for the King/Queen to be completely apolitical...at least publicly, even though everything is done in their name. Of course, the monarch has regular meetings with their head of government and you have to assume they're discussing more than the weather and the latest football results, so we can argue that they have to have some idea of what's going on and might try to influence some actions one way or another. The issue of artifacts looted from their colonies is actually a bit more nuanced than it might seem. I'm sure they have plenty of stuff from Afghanistan, but can we be sure that the Taliban would protect them?

so you're saying inheritances should be taxed?

Heavily.

Fair enough, but isn't the Crown Estate enough for that?

And what does it say about the monarchs as stewards and "the dignity" of the nation of they have to be bribed to not be bribed?

which then leads to the question of is it anyone's business other than those running Afghanistan what happens to Afghani artifacts?

I mean, obviously I get your point about preservation... but there's some pretty heavy colonialist baggage attached to even a reasonable (based on the tali's prior treatment of antiquities) presumption.

It gets even uglier if applied to First Nations here... sure it's nice of the British Museum to display stuff of cultures they openly tried to eradicate.

This.

As I said it’s a nuanced situation. Ideally they should all go back. But there is the pragmatic issue of protecting the stuff. A lot of stuff was looted after the U.S. invasion. Some stuff has been returned if I understand correctly, but only after major haggling. Looting didn't start with the euro imperialists (not saying you’re claiming it did). There is a deeper context than it might seem at first glance.

I dunno, I'm not a financial planner.

Money always complicates things, even if that's not the intent. As a general rule the Royals are supposed to remain impartial and unbiased. How do you propose a future monarch earn a living without opening themselves up to allegations of bias or bribery at some point? Do we really want Prince William pulling a Hunter Biden or a Jared Kushner? Or Charles providing Royal assent for a sketchy bill that just so happens to directly benefit an industry Kate Middleton works in?

Someone brought up the same question to me years ago regarding the pay for US presidents. My response is, if they don't have enough integrity to do the job without bribery, they don't deserve the job. As for a royal, well, if Charles requires payment for doing the right thing, then maybe the UK needs to re-examine the pros and cons of having a monarchy

Oof, so much gnashing of teeth in this thread cause no one bothered to check. The answer is no. Since George III all profits from crown lands* go to the government.

*except from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, where the crown pays income taxes (voluntarily, they say) on the profits instead.

Again, it's not just being completely ethical and unbiased, it's also maintaining the perception of being completely ethical and unbiased.

Whenever a president appoints new secretaries don't people scrutinize where they used to work or which industries they have ties to, even if there's no proof they're going to tilt things in favour of their former employers?

But, does the president pay the secretary 600K+ annually so she doesn't tilt things in favour of their former employer?

They're arresting people for protesting the monarchy now.


Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.