4 ms·

> One constitutional expert warned that the carve-outs undermine the notion that everyone is equal before the law A monarch is unequal under the law by definit

> One constitutional expert warned that the carve-outs undermine the notion that everyone is equal before the law A monarch is unequal under the law by definition. This editorial seems to be arguing there’s a distinct “private persona” that should be equal under the law, while their “public persona” lives a hereditarily granted, opulent lifestyle fully subsidized by the state and decidedly unequal under the law. That distinction makes no sense. If you (rightfully) don’t want a hereditary constitutional monarchy, just don’t have one.

vagrantJin 4y ago
> If you (rightfully) don’t want a hereditary constitutional monarchy, just don’t have one. I'm wondering about why it would be right to not have a constitutional monarch, seeing as monarchs are really old and likely the default governing structure for human civilizations. A president is still pretty much monarch[0]. [0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_family)
cedilla 4y ago
There is absolutely no reason why a constitutional monarch would automatically need to be exempted from so many laws. In fact, the UK is the only European monarchy that has such broad exemptions. Liechtenstein might come close though. Elizabeth 2 is as far as I know the only European monarch who extracts enough wealth from their country to be the richest person in it.
- pjbeam 4y ago
  I don't know how to calculate the value of being the queen, but searching for richest person in UK does not out her at the top.
  - cedilla 4y ago
    Apparently she is only the richest person if you include crown estate properties - which I agree mostly shouldn't count as personal property. The personal wealth is still considerable, with 500 million dollars being the low estimates. So let me amend: the only European monarch obscenely rich.
    - pjbeam 4y ago
      Oh for sure, she's got a couple nickels to rub together. Was more curious than trying to snark.
- afiori 4y ago
  The crown as a private entity gives more money to the state than it receives https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw I do not have primary sources but according to GPC Grey in the video the royal family receives £45 millions and gives ~£200 millions In the same sense that the queen is the richest person in the UK it is also true that almost the entirety of her possession are handled (and profited) by the state. Quoting Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III > On his accession, the Crown lands produced relatively little income; most revenue was generated through taxes and excise duties. George surrendered the Crown Estate to Parliamentary control in return for a civil list annuity for the support of his household and the expenses of civil government I have no opinion on the british royal family and honestly I don't see them keeping the title for more than two other generations, but it does not look like they are (currently) bleeding the country
- tinus_hn 4y ago
  The Dutch king enjoys complete immunity from all laws.

vagrantJin 4y ago

> If you (rightfully) don’t want a hereditary constitutional monarchy, just don’t have one. I'm wondering about why it would be right to not have a constitutional monarch, seeing as monarchs are really old and likely the default governing structure for human civilizations. A president is still pretty much monarch[0]. [0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_family)

cedilla 4y ago

There is absolutely no reason why a constitutional monarch would automatically need to be exempted from so many laws. In fact, the UK is the only European monarchy that has such broad exemptions. Liechtenstein might come close though. Elizabeth 2 is as far as I know the only European monarch who extracts enough wealth from their country to be the richest person in it.

pjbeam 4y ago
I don't know how to calculate the value of being the queen, but searching for richest person in UK does not out her at the top.
- cedilla 4y ago
  Apparently she is only the richest person if you include crown estate properties - which I agree mostly shouldn't count as personal property. The personal wealth is still considerable, with 500 million dollars being the low estimates. So let me amend: the only European monarch obscenely rich.
  - pjbeam 4y ago
    Oh for sure, she's got a couple nickels to rub together. Was more curious than trying to snark.
afiori 4y ago
The crown as a private entity gives more money to the state than it receives https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw I do not have primary sources but according to GPC Grey in the video the royal family receives £45 millions and gives ~£200 millions In the same sense that the queen is the richest person in the UK it is also true that almost the entirety of her possession are handled (and profited) by the state. Quoting Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III > On his accession, the Crown lands produced relatively little income; most revenue was generated through taxes and excise duties. George surrendered the Crown Estate to Parliamentary control in return for a civil list annuity for the support of his household and the expenses of civil government I have no opinion on the british royal family and honestly I don't see them keeping the title for more than two other generations, but it does not look like they are (currently) bleeding the country
tinus_hn 4y ago
The Dutch king enjoys complete immunity from all laws.