zlacker

I was told a few years ago that there's a general expectation that Charles will mostly focus on some long overdue reforms of how the Royal Family operates e.g. with respect to their business and land holdings, whilst leaving 'normal' politics behind. There have been changes he felt were important for years that he couldn't do whilst he wasn't King. And after that he might retire.

Not sure how much truth there was to all that but it was a family member who told me and they follow this stuff a lot more than I do. It sounds plausible at least, and if that's how he does things, and then William becomes King, the monarchy might stick around for a while longer yet.

>>origin+(OP)
That's true, I can't remember the phrasing but wanting a more 'slimmed down working royal family unit' as it were is another thing he's been vocal on. But I would say it has gone a lot more that way in recent years anyway, through some combination of the Queen agreeing/easing into it and 'helped' by some external factors of course.

>>origin+(OP)
How they operate? I mean what can they do beyond the sovereign fund, which takes the profit from their land and business holdings and gives them 15%~ (increased only for certain reasons, like Bham palace renovations), with the rest going to the government.

I think it's hilarious how the average person thinks that "the taxpayer" pays for the monarchy whereas realistically it's their family's holdings that pay for it. If they don't like that then strip them of their land, but strip everyone of their land; no inheritance for anyone.

And even then, whilst they have _some_ personal holdings, the majority of the royal estate cannot be sold by them for personal gain, it _must_ be passed down, it's not your typical inheritance.

As well as that, sure they live a cushy royal life, but I wouldn't want it for me. They are bound to royal duties, to act a certain way, do certain things, follow certain protocols - doing otherwise is shirking royal duties and that comes with its own consequences.

At the same time I think QEII was the last "true" royal. She was the last royal who exhibited at least some of what we would expect from the royals of old, King Arthur, etc. The modern royals, CIII onwards is the start of their decline, imo.

She lived for so long and through so much. Maybe she could have done more to help the everyman - but her power was limited, which is what the people chose - the Glorious Revolution.

>>OJFord+D7
> I can't remember the phrasing

I remembered, just too late to edit: 'streamlined' is how he's put it. Close family/'heir line' only, such as seen on more recent balconies.

>>fennec+IK1
Their holdings gained at the expense of the population?

There’s a huge difference between a family that has gathered obscene wealth through royal privilege and families that pass on their moderate inheritances to children.

Let’s start by enforcing normal inheritance tax on them, rather than letting them sidestep it using family trusts.