• livus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t understand why this writer is calling it “a new low”.

    The Guardian investigation he linked to seems to have established that it went on for at least a decade under QEII. Charles only inherited the right to do it when she died last year.

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      People here in the UK like to pretend that the queen was a granny-saint and that the monarch is a completely benign “figurehead” (still chosen by god though🙄 and gets to sit on a gold throne in a gold room while millions need to decide if to heat or eat).

      Of course you’re right, and she, and all those who came before her, were active oppressive exploiters, but her death and him taking the job is opening a very small crack where people are more comfortable criticising the institution, and honestly, as depressing as it is that even this is getting pushback from royalists, I’ll take it if it means more people in this country start to realise that our overlords are nothing but inbred parasites.

      • livus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah that’s an interesting point. Here in NZ we outsource monarchy to the UK (I think it costs us about $1 per person per year) and it’s often been said that this is likely to end during Charles’ reign because he’s way less popular than QEII.

          • livus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hahaha no but when they come and visit us we tend to splash out on security etc.

            They don’t really benefit from us financially at all as far as I know.

              • livus@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Heh. No, ironically the history here with the white settlers is the opposite insofar as we were mostly an autonomous colony, and when Britain passed a law giving New Zealand the right to full independence it took us 15 years to take them up on it.

                They used to buy all our stuff and NZ was really annoyed when they stopped so they could join the EU.

                We’re like that kid that moves out but still comes round for meals. We were still regularly borrowing their Privy Council for use as our highest court until like 2004.

                • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Then I guess we’re the fat kid down the street trying to get you to come out and blow up ant hills with firecrackers.

                  Commonwealth countries seem so fucking strange for me. Probably for a lot of Americans.

                • TrippaSnippa@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Not every member of the Commonwealth has the British monarch as head of state (in fact the majority do not).

    • astreus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah but Charles is suffering from a short reign penalty. He should really execute some prisoners; high dread means fewer factions.

      Source: I play a lot of Crusader Kings

  • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Has this writer missed the past thousand years of the British monarchy?

    Yeah, that’s one egregious thing, but it’s one of many, many things. Why do they think most rebellions happened? Because the peasantry didn’t get prime parking?

    I keep seeing articles about this like the monarchy just suddenly started leeching the people’s money and I’m dumbfounded.

    • Akuchimoya@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ll have you know that Queen Elizabeth and her father were both stamp collectors! Really, there’s really a royal stamp collection and its considered (likely) the best (the wisest in breath) in the world.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    It is standard practice for the royals to seek to minimise their personal expenditure while maximising their income from other sources, normally the public purse.

    Edward VIII found cash from those who died intestate in the boundaries of the duchy was sitting in an account in case claims arose against it.

    George VI did very well out of the loyal servicemen who died serving their country in the second world war, who originated from within the confines of the duchy and had no will.

    As disquiet about the practice of bona vacantia grew after the war, the royals announced that moneys collected would henceforth be given to charity – after processing costs had been deducted, of course.

    Moneys we all thought were going to charity have instead been used to improve properties owned by the duchy, increasing the income stream that flows from them into Charles’s pockets.

    Back in Queen Victoria’s reign, the government was told she was desperately short of cash to undertake her duties so a big uplift was provided.


    The original article contains 759 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!