5 ms·

I mean… why would the royal family be allowed to “keep” anything in an abolished monarchy? Obviously you should just seize roughly all the property. It’s a prod

by rtpg 4y ago

I mean… why would the royal family be allowed to “keep” anything in an abolished monarchy? Obviously you should just seize roughly all the property. It’s a product of the State, not the royal family working hard

blibble 4y ago
if the government tried it they'd take it to judicial review and they'd win
munk-a 4y ago
Maybe? That's a really complicated question honestly - how much of their personal property actually is hereditary wealth and how much is a benefit of their station. I can tell you the answer is neither 0% nor 100% - the royal family (if dethroned) shouldn't be thrown out as paupers and it shouldn't be granted personal control of spaces that enjoy public use. Where precisely that line should be drawn is complicated but if that line leaves them with any significant portion of their current titular wealth the UK will end up losing money. The Crown Estate might be worth around 15.6 Billion, so a few hundred million every year is far less then the family would receive if they liquidated the lands at value and just invested it into an index fund. The actual income of the estate is significantly higher - with a lot of those assets under reporting their actual yield in terms of tourism and public benefits. I think it's a really complicated question. Lastly, while we're on this topic - why hasn't the US seized the wealth of the 100 most wealthy individuals unilaterally - that money would be of immense amount of benefit to the country so why do we let wealth accrue?
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  It's a complicated question with regards to some of their property. It's not at all complicated with the Crown Estates. That is clearly public property. Otherwise Edward VIII would have kept it when he abdicated.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    Edward VIII was pressured into giving up a lot of stuff he legally should have been able to keep. He wasn’t good at making decisions.
    - yencabulator 4y ago
      "Legally", based on laws made law by kings of previous generations. The whole point is people asking to change the laws, democratically.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  King Georges stamp collection is worth 10s of millions. It’s also 100% private property. When King George died, his stamp collection went to his widow, who kept it until her death at 102. There’s probably personal property like that scattered throughout the family tree.

by rtpg 4y ago

blibble 4y ago

if the government tried it they'd take it to judicial review and they'd win

munk-a 4y ago

Maybe? That's a really complicated question honestly - how much of their personal property actually is hereditary wealth and how much is a benefit of their station. I can tell you the answer is neither 0% nor 100% - the royal family (if dethroned) shouldn't be thrown out as paupers and it shouldn't be granted personal control of spaces that enjoy public use. Where precisely that line should be drawn is complicated but if that line leaves them with any significant portion of their current titular wealth the UK will end up losing money. The Crown Estate might be worth around 15.6 Billion, so a few hundred million every year is far less then the family would receive if they liquidated the lands at value and just invested it into an index fund. The actual income of the estate is significantly higher - with a lot of those assets under reporting their actual yield in terms of tourism and public benefits. I think it's a really complicated question. Lastly, while we're on this topic - why hasn't the US seized the wealth of the 100 most wealthy individuals unilaterally - that money would be of immense amount of benefit to the country so why do we let wealth accrue?

TheCoelacanth 4y ago
It's a complicated question with regards to some of their property. It's not at all complicated with the Crown Estates. That is clearly public property. Otherwise Edward VIII would have kept it when he abdicated.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  Edward VIII was pressured into giving up a lot of stuff he legally should have been able to keep. He wasn’t good at making decisions.
  - yencabulator 4y ago
    "Legally", based on laws made law by kings of previous generations. The whole point is people asking to change the laws, democratically.
pyuser583 4y ago
King Georges stamp collection is worth 10s of millions. It’s also 100% private property. When King George died, his stamp collection went to his widow, who kept it until her death at 102. There’s probably personal property like that scattered throughout the family tree.