Posted on 09/21/2022 1:41:34 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Charles has for a long time made it known that he intends to “slim down” the monarchy in response to public demand for a more modern institution with lower costs and less ostentation.
(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...
Look out Harry and Megan..He’s coming for you
“Some Freeper awhile ago said that the monarchy brings in more money due to tourism than it spends. “
King Charles III surrendered the Crown Estate in exchange for an annual stipend funded from the profits of the estate.
The estate is worth about $15 billion.
Reference Sovereign Grant
See #22
If I were CR III, I would have a sit down in a SCIF with Harry and tell him that he has already damaged the Crown irreparably.
If he returns the $20 mm of Judas money to the publisher of his new upcoming memoir and cancels its publication, then we can continue to go sideways with the status quo.
If that book gets published (or leaks, or another Oprah interview, etc., ...) then I will issue a Letter Patent (???) and change the succession plan to cut him, and others, out. He will be stripped of all titles and money, including any inheritance from me or Camilla. Basically, he becomes an unemployed private citizen with no pension.
And, if he divorces Mee-Again, I will fund the settlement on the sly and bring him back, but the kids are title-less regular citizens with no path to assume the Crown.
Tough love.
Do what is needed and then pass the Crown to William in 10 years.
I doubt that's up to him.
Parliament can end the monarchy if it or the public want to. But so far, they don't want to.
The perfect Tea - Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Kamila Harris, Alexandria Ocasio, the ‘Hens’ from ‘The View’ and Camilla
How ‘bout ‘Three Buck Chuck’?
Why are so many Americans passionately against the Brits having a monarch?
I'm glad we don't, but the Brits want one. The majority think it's money well invested.
The monarchy functions as a British tourist attraction, a PR firm, an extension of the Foreign Office, and an unifying touchstone of tradition and patriotism.
What do you care if Brits want a monarch?
Start with Hairy and Meagain.
It’s funny that the public demand a “less costly” institution. The Royal Family are some of the largest property owners in the world, and all income from their properties is given to Parliament, and put into the general Treasury. The Royal Family are then given an ALLOWANCE from Parliament on the proceeds from THEIR PROPERTY. For those who want to abolish the Monarchy, go for it. They’ll no longer have any reason to give their money to Parliament. All that revenue would be lost. Because all that land is owned by them personally, not the British government.
This system was instituted by George III because he got tired of the expense and trouble of managing his own estates.
Well said!
I’d be happy if Andrew went to prison.
Every monarch has done that for awhile. The income from the royal lands pays for the royal family’s expenses, and puts a nice chunk of change in the treasury on top of it. Then add the profits from royal-related tourism to that.
King Charles, The Dud. Mummy did her duty to make 73 year old Charles’ reign as short as possible.
I’m reading “Randy Andy, Harry and What’sErName” into this one. So call me provincial.
Andrew will not go to prison. Not happening.
No one here is going to prison. Not happening. We have a 2-3 tier justice system in these United States of America.
As much as we want people to pay for their wrong doing, our political system prohibits it. Just the way it is. Congress can investigate all they want. It is a dog and pony show.
With a few exceptions they are all on the same side.
Most of the personal income into the household is through the Royal properties. There are extensive farming lands leased out. The tourism you mentioned would be similar I think. Also, the islands of Jersey and Guernsey off of France in the English Channel and I think Isle of Man in the Irish Sea are royal protectorates completely separate from Great Briton.
As I understand it, the several places in London are used for State functions so costs for operation and maintenance are shared by the government. In addition, when royals are engaged in anything thing government related, the royals are essentially on a government expense account so to speak.
Feel free to correct anything where you have better information than I.
Some Americans obviously think that they aren’t being patriotic enough if they don’t slate the monarchy. I get that America’s national identity is wrapped up in republicanism and rejection of the British monarchy but I don’t see why they feel it is necessary to dump on something that is a beloved cultural institution of an allied and friendly country and which is a core part of OUR identity and does the US no harm.
“Why are so many Americans passionately against the Brits having a monarch?”
I haven’t figured that one out either.
The Brits have a system with the Monarchy and parliament. Parliament does the heavy lifting and the Monarchy is the window dressing. It works for the UK. Let it be.
There’s a reason they refer to themselves as “The Firm”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.