zlacker

> You make it sound like she was sentenced to sign paperwork for her entire life, when the reality is she consciously chose to do so every day

They are not popular concepts these days, but the ideas you're grasping for are duty and service. She did her duty and she served her people.

Also, the Royal Family is not in receipt of taxpayer money. The Sovereign Grant is funded from income generated by the Crown Estate.

>>Veen+(OP)
The Crown Estate is owned by the government, so it could be used to reduce taxes or increase spending if it weren't used to support the Royal Family. So indirectly, the money comes out of taxpayers' pockets.

>>Veen+(OP)
The Crown Estate is not the private property of the Windsor family though. It is more akin to the wealth of a parallel state. One could speculate that in the event of the abolition of the monarchy the Crown Estate would be taken over by the government (at the very least not become Windsor family private property), in effect making it the taxpayers' property.

I think it's totally fair to feel that they have a life of immense luxury and privilege off of wealth that belongs to the people, while so many people in this country are wondering if they'll have heating this winter.

>>wasmit+31
Yes and no. The assets still have much the same value without a monarch but the opportunities to monetise them would be significantly reduced.

>>_alxk+j1
Again this is something I assume that must have been very frustrating too. She couldn’t just say “that’s not right” and intervene because that’s not within her remit in a democratic system.

I can’t begin to imagine how many times she must have had to bite her tongue over the last 73 years.

>>highwa+o2
I never bought this argument. France got rid of their royal family but the royal palaces and their art still attract millions of tourists each year.

Tourists would still want to see Buckingham Palace and visit the royal gallery even without a sitting royal family.

>>highwa+33
No, they actively lobbied over the years of her reign to preserve their economic benefits. They enjoyed this luxury and made attempts at preserving and expending it. Elizabeth was not a passive victim of her birth circumstances.

>>wasmit+31
My understand is that the Crown Estate is owned by the Crown, personified by the Monarch. Also, it's NOT used to fund the Monarch directly, instead all profits from the Estate go to the Treasury, which in turn pays a percentage of that back to the Monarch, for the purpose of running the Monarchy.

I'm not sure if it is in any way clearly defined what should happen to the Estate should Britain choose to become a Republic, but I suppose the actual result would be that it would be taken over completely by the government.

But _formally_ it is still considered property of the Monarch.

>>trasht+R6
This sounds eerily like college football in the US. “It brings in money that funds other sports and university facilities so we can’t get rid of it.”

>>trasht+R6
It's the property of the Crown, which is legally a corporation sole with the monarch as the sole 'member' of the corporation. It means, for example, that Charles gets Buckingham Palace and the crown jewels automatically by operation of law on becoming king, rather than via Elizabeth's will. A similar arrangement applies to Anglican vicars who have the freehold of their church - it's owned by 'The Vicar of Bray' rather than by Rev Smith.

It's generally understood by constitutional scholars that the Crown is essentially governmental rather than private and the Crown Estate would go with the government rather than the royal family if the assets were split up on the creation of a republic.

The Queen also had extensive private wealth, including Balmoral Castle which (unlike the royal places) was hers personally rather than as monarch. IIRC it was bought privately by either Victoria or Albert rather than via the Crown Estate. This mattered after the abdication of Edward VIII, where the property of the Crown passed to George VI as the new king, but the private possessions of Edward stayed with him. I think Balmoral and Sandringham had to be bought off him so they would stay as royal residences. Presumably most of that private wealth will be bequeathed to Charles, though we won't find out: the Queen's will is, uniquely, private by statute.

>>_alxk+66
>Elizabeth was not a passive victim of her birth circumstances.

It's so strange that this even needs to be said out loud. It's not edgy to say that someone born into her position has benefitted from it. For a place that claims to be a meritocracy, the UK has some strangely dissonant beliefs.

>>_alxk+r4
And without the Windsors in the way, the visitors could pay £10 to look around inside.

>>noodle+bc
Not sure who this needed to be said out loud to.

It’s not edgy to explain something everyone already knows. The royal family benefits from the taxation of UK citizens.

“For a place that claims to be a meritocracy, the UK has some strangely dissonant beliefs”

Are you.. States-splaining.. to me right now?

“Elizabeth was not a passive victim of her birth circumstances.. the UK has some strangely dissonant beliefs”.

I don’t know if you’re from the US or not, but if so this is the most ironically hypocritical thing I’ve ever read.