7 ms·

This starts out with a strong stance, asserting that this is a "myth". But, it sounds to me like the king does actually own pretty much all the swans in Great

This starts out with a strong stance, asserting that this is a "myth". But, it sounds to me like the king does actually own pretty much all the swans in Great Britain. He has every swan in England, Wales, and Scotland except: - those on the Orkney and Shetland islands - those "marked" with leg bands as being owned by the Worshipful Company of Vintners and the Worshipful Company of Dyers.

qbrass 3y ago
They're playing up that it's a myth to make you assume he doesn't own the swans at all, then assert that in reality, he doesn't own all the swans, so they're technically correct. You could claim that he's really just licensing the swans to anyone with a swan mark, so it's really just the Shetland and Orkney swans he doesn't own.
teruakohatu 3y ago
The King does not personally own the swans, but rather the institution that is The Crown. The King, cannot for example, build and sell a private mansion on Crown land. Presumably he cannot sell swans either. Or at least that is my interpretation.
- judge2020 3y ago
  The land in particular is considered the Crown Estate, and the agreements that relinquish control of the land to the government are voluntarily enacted by each monarch. Any monarch could at any time not renew this provision, since King George III did not sell or actually give up the land; it still belongs to The Crown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate
  - skissane 3y ago
    > The land in particular is considered the Crown Estate, and the agreements that relinquish control of the land to the government are voluntarily enacted by each monarch. Any monarch could at any time not renew this provision, since King George III did not sell or actually give up the land; it still belongs to The Crown You are ignoring one of the important unwritten rules of the British system – there's a lot of things which the Monarch "voluntarily" agrees to which aren't really voluntary. If a Monarch started refusing, it would trigger a constitutional crisis, the likely outcome of which would be that the law would be changed to make it no longer "voluntary". King Charles III has immense powers on paper, but if he ever tried to actually wield them – with the possible exception of highly unusual circumstances, such as a constitutional crisis not of his own making – he would soon find himself deprived of them. It reminds me of a conversation a friend of mine once had with an emergency room doctor whilst in the midst of a mental health episode – Patient: "Am I free to leave?" Doctor: "Well, I haven't sectioned you, so right now you are legally free to leave – but if you try to leave, I will section you, and then you won't be legally free to leave". That may seem like a bizarre comparison, but I think in many ways it is an accurate one.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - AndrewDavis 3y ago
      See Australia. - The Govenor General is appointed by the Monarch as their representative. The government recommends a candidate. There is nothing (as far as I'm aware) to force the monarch to appoint the individual versus anyone they want. This would be a constitutional crisis. - The Govenor General has kinds the same powers as the monarch. Legislation requires "royal ascent l" to become law (similar concept to the US president signing bills passed by congress). The Govenor could reject the bill, but that'd trigger a constitutional crisis. - The Govenor General holds similar powers to the executive of the US (using them as an example because if you are on an England speaking site you probably have some familiarity of the US system via media). But based on recommendations from the Prime Minister defers these powers to different ministers. Commonly referred to as a Portfolio. Eg how we a minister for defence, immigration etc etc. Failure to follow government recommendations would trigger a constitutional crisis. - The Govenor general can sack government and trigger an election. The closest Australia has been to constitutional crisis was the time this power was exercised with the sacking of Gough Whitlam. (note this is all based on my memory and understanding from classes in high school long ago)
      - vkou 3y ago
        The situation in Canada is the same, but there is one situation where the GG's power is significant, and does not trigger a constitutional crisis. Determining whether or not a minority government is dissolved, and an election is held, or if a ruling coalition can be allowed to form. In 2008, right after the election the GG did the ruling minority of Tories a pretty big favor by refusing to accept a non-confidence vote by a majority coalition, and instead, proroguing parliament for the benefit of the ruling minority party... Absolutely insane. (That this question is left to the whim of one unelected person.)
        markdown 3y ago
        It's actually really sane. Elected individuals are almost always corrupt... you really can't be elected anymore without owing lots of people favours. An unelected, non-political individual who is above it all results in a more stable democracy.
  - _fizz_buzz_ 3y ago
    > Any monarch could at any time not renew this provision and by that immediately end the monarchy itself. The UK is funny like that. The king signs all the laws and could refuse in theory, but if he does he wouldn't be king anymore.
    - youngtaff 3y ago
      But the Monarch’s lawyers get to review laws at an early stage so they can object / get then changes before the law is passed It’s how laws that exempted the Monarch from race discrimination laws, why leaseholders in the Duchy of Cornwall can’t buy their freeholds etc.
      - rcxdude 3y ago
        Yeah, an outright assertion of power from the monarch would not go well, but the soft power they wield is still pretty extreme.
    - nly 3y ago
      The constitution of the UK is unwritten. If the king tried it would be for the courts to decide on the legality.
      - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
        That would run into the same problem Parliament ran into with the trial of Charles I: The root of all authority in the UK is the Crown. By challenging the authority of the Crown, the court is challenging its own authority to challenge anything. Of course, that argument didn't really work fantastically with Charles I.
- derefr 3y ago
  > Presumably he cannot sell swans either. Well, of course he can't — if you own something by definition, then if you sell it, you still own it; so you can't really sell it (without that being a con), can you? ;)
  - waste_monk 3y ago
    Local monarch discovers one simple trick for infinite swan money, economists hate him!
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    NFTs enter the chat
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- zarzavat 3y ago
  The King is the state. There are restrictions on what he can do with Crown property, as you mention he is not allowed to dispose of it. These restrictions ultimately lead to the creation of a separate legal personhood for the King as an individual. In other words, Crown property has always been the King’s, however, exceptionally he is allowed a second personhood so that he can buy, sell and (importantly) bequeath property like a normal person can.
  - s1mplicissimus 3y ago
    "The king is the state" used to be the case before the french revolution, see King Louis 14(?) (L'etat cest moi, "the state is me"). Since then quiet a couple things have changed, i recommend checking out some 19th/20th century history
    - justeleblanc 3y ago
      Louis XIV probably never said that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27%C3%89tat,_c%27est_moi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27%C3%89tat,_c%27est_moi
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > […] but rather the institution that is The Crown. Perhaps of some interest: > The King's Two Bodies (subtitled, A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology) is a 1957 historical book by Ernst Kantorowicz. It concerns medieval political theology and the distinctions separating the "body natural" (a monarch's corporeal being) and the "body politic".[1] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King%27s_Two_Bodies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King%27s_Two_Bodies
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
blitzar 3y ago
tldr: Don't be silly the King doesn't own ALLL the swans in the land, there are 6 that he doesn't own.

qbrass 3y ago

They're playing up that it's a myth to make you assume he doesn't own the swans at all, then assert that in reality, he doesn't own all the swans, so they're technically correct. You could claim that he's really just licensing the swans to anyone with a swan mark, so it's really just the Shetland and Orkney swans he doesn't own.

teruakohatu 3y ago

The King does not personally own the swans, but rather the institution that is The Crown. The King, cannot for example, build and sell a private mansion on Crown land. Presumably he cannot sell swans either. Or at least that is my interpretation.

judge2020 3y ago
The land in particular is considered the Crown Estate, and the agreements that relinquish control of the land to the government are voluntarily enacted by each monarch. Any monarch could at any time not renew this provision, since King George III did not sell or actually give up the land; it still belongs to The Crown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate
- skissane 3y ago
  > The land in particular is considered the Crown Estate, and the agreements that relinquish control of the land to the government are voluntarily enacted by each monarch. Any monarch could at any time not renew this provision, since King George III did not sell or actually give up the land; it still belongs to The Crown You are ignoring one of the important unwritten rules of the British system – there's a lot of things which the Monarch "voluntarily" agrees to which aren't really voluntary. If a Monarch started refusing, it would trigger a constitutional crisis, the likely outcome of which would be that the law would be changed to make it no longer "voluntary". King Charles III has immense powers on paper, but if he ever tried to actually wield them – with the possible exception of highly unusual circumstances, such as a constitutional crisis not of his own making – he would soon find himself deprived of them. It reminds me of a conversation a friend of mine once had with an emergency room doctor whilst in the midst of a mental health episode – Patient: "Am I free to leave?" Doctor: "Well, I haven't sectioned you, so right now you are legally free to leave – but if you try to leave, I will section you, and then you won't be legally free to leave". That may seem like a bizarre comparison, but I think in many ways it is an accurate one.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - AndrewDavis 3y ago
    See Australia. - The Govenor General is appointed by the Monarch as their representative. The government recommends a candidate. There is nothing (as far as I'm aware) to force the monarch to appoint the individual versus anyone they want. This would be a constitutional crisis. - The Govenor General has kinds the same powers as the monarch. Legislation requires "royal ascent l" to become law (similar concept to the US president signing bills passed by congress). The Govenor could reject the bill, but that'd trigger a constitutional crisis. - The Govenor General holds similar powers to the executive of the US (using them as an example because if you are on an England speaking site you probably have some familiarity of the US system via media). But based on recommendations from the Prime Minister defers these powers to different ministers. Commonly referred to as a Portfolio. Eg how we a minister for defence, immigration etc etc. Failure to follow government recommendations would trigger a constitutional crisis. - The Govenor general can sack government and trigger an election. The closest Australia has been to constitutional crisis was the time this power was exercised with the sacking of Gough Whitlam. (note this is all based on my memory and understanding from classes in high school long ago)
    - vkou 3y ago
      The situation in Canada is the same, but there is one situation where the GG's power is significant, and does not trigger a constitutional crisis. Determining whether or not a minority government is dissolved, and an election is held, or if a ruling coalition can be allowed to form. In 2008, right after the election the GG did the ruling minority of Tories a pretty big favor by refusing to accept a non-confidence vote by a majority coalition, and instead, proroguing parliament for the benefit of the ruling minority party... Absolutely insane. (That this question is left to the whim of one unelected person.)
      - markdown 3y ago
        It's actually really sane. Elected individuals are almost always corrupt... you really can't be elected anymore without owing lots of people favours. An unelected, non-political individual who is above it all results in a more stable democracy.
- _fizz_buzz_ 3y ago
  > Any monarch could at any time not renew this provision and by that immediately end the monarchy itself. The UK is funny like that. The king signs all the laws and could refuse in theory, but if he does he wouldn't be king anymore.
  - youngtaff 3y ago
    But the Monarch’s lawyers get to review laws at an early stage so they can object / get then changes before the law is passed It’s how laws that exempted the Monarch from race discrimination laws, why leaseholders in the Duchy of Cornwall can’t buy their freeholds etc.
    - rcxdude 3y ago
      Yeah, an outright assertion of power from the monarch would not go well, but the soft power they wield is still pretty extreme.
  - nly 3y ago
    The constitution of the UK is unwritten. If the king tried it would be for the courts to decide on the legality.
    - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
      That would run into the same problem Parliament ran into with the trial of Charles I: The root of all authority in the UK is the Crown. By challenging the authority of the Crown, the court is challenging its own authority to challenge anything. Of course, that argument didn't really work fantastically with Charles I.
derefr 3y ago
> Presumably he cannot sell swans either. Well, of course he can't — if you own something by definition, then if you sell it, you still own it; so you can't really sell it (without that being a con), can you? ;)
- waste_monk 3y ago
  Local monarch discovers one simple trick for infinite swan money, economists hate him!
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  NFTs enter the chat
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
zarzavat 3y ago
The King is the state. There are restrictions on what he can do with Crown property, as you mention he is not allowed to dispose of it. These restrictions ultimately lead to the creation of a separate legal personhood for the King as an individual. In other words, Crown property has always been the King’s, however, exceptionally he is allowed a second personhood so that he can buy, sell and (importantly) bequeath property like a normal person can.
- s1mplicissimus 3y ago
  "The king is the state" used to be the case before the french revolution, see King Louis 14(?) (L'etat cest moi, "the state is me"). Since then quiet a couple things have changed, i recommend checking out some 19th/20th century history
  - justeleblanc 3y ago
    Louis XIV probably never said that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27%C3%89tat,_c%27est_moi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27%C3%89tat,_c%27est_moi
throw0101b 3y ago
> […] but rather the institution that is The Crown. Perhaps of some interest: > The King's Two Bodies (subtitled, A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology) is a 1957 historical book by Ernst Kantorowicz. It concerns medieval political theology and the distinctions separating the "body natural" (a monarch's corporeal being) and the "body politic".[1] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King%27s_Two_Bodies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King%27s_Two_Bodies

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

blitzar 3y ago

tldr: Don't be silly the King doesn't own ALLL the swans in the land, there are 6 that he doesn't own.