Poll: How would you vote in a referendum to abolish the monarchy?

[UTmaniac]

The opposite of Boris and Farage.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

As I expected:



The crown estate can't "revert to the state" because the state has never owned it. You're advocating seizing assets owned by an individual. Having the people seizing the assets declare that they already own them doesn't make it any less of a seizure. If I stole your car and declared that I owned it, that would still be theft.

I think you're just avoiding the question of how you would determine whose assets would be seized by force.

And where did they get it from originally? From conquest and the crown used to take anything it wanted only held back by fear of backlash from nobles. You are talking like this is some god given right. The monarch "owns" it but if we have no monarch then there is no owner, its only Elizabeth Windsor's while she is monarch. It would no longer have an owner so it would be absorbed by the state. So no one is stealing anything. It's not like the Windsors wouldn't be left as porpers. You seem to be arguing that she should be allowed to keep it even if she is no longer queen.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Palace of Versailles says otherwise.

Exactly. If anything the monarchy stifles the possibility to raise more money from tourism as the palaces are closed to the public for the vast majority of the year.

We could also finally rid ourselves of one of the worst national anthems in the world. No mention of anything about the country and its citizens, just all about the monarch. All it says is there is one person that matters in this country.

 

[platinum87]

To deny people vote because of the party leader when they vote is dishonest. A lot of people don't even know the name of their MP and don''t care, I don't know the name of mine. They vote for the party and the leader of that party, the actual candidate in their constituency is almost irrelevant. I wish we had a different system where everyone's vote actually matters, mine didn't.

I can't tell if your 90% communist comment is serious or not. If it is serious then wow.

You said everyone voted for boris ergo, everyone is an idiot, but the other option would have been corbyn, and the same statement would apply, so its essentially a pointless thing to say.

And of course i am serious, do you not see where your tax is being spent?

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

You said everyone voted for boris ergo, everyone is an idiot, but the other option would have been corbyn, and the same statement would apply, so its essentially a pointless thing to say.

And of course i am serious, do you not see where your tax is being spent?

I can't take you seriously when you think they are 90% communist.

 

[Angilion]

And where did they get it from originally?

They inherited it from their father.

From conquest and the crown used to take anything it wanted only held back by fear of backlash from nobles. You are talking like this is some god given right.

No, I am not. I'm an atheist. Your god, whichever one that is, has nothing to do with me.

In order to be consistent, you would at least have to seize all assets with a line of inheritance going back more than a little way in time because if you go back further than a little way you will encounter something that would be considered unethical by current standards. But you're not consistent.

The monarch "owns" it but if we have no monarch then there is no owner, its only Elizabeth Windsor's while she is monarch. It would no longer have an owner so it would be absorbed by the state. So no one is stealing anything. It's not like the Windsors wouldn't be left as porpers. You seem to be arguing that she should be allowed to keep it even if she is no longer queen.

And again, you're dishonestly advocating the seizure of privately owned assets by proclaiming that the owner of those assets doesn't own them because you say so. Everything I've said previously still applies. If I stole your car and proclaimed that it's my car and you never owned it, would that make it OK? Or would you still consider that theft? I would.

The current owner of those assets doesn't own them because she's the monarch. She owns them because she inherited them from her father, who owned them while he was alive. He in turn inherited them from one of his parents, etc, etc. Those assets are not owned by the state or by the crown. They're managed by the state. More specifically, they're managed by an organisation appointed to do so. But they're owned by a person. The agreement was and is clear - the income from the assets was assigned to the state. The assets themselves were not. Abolishing the monarchy would nullify that agreement, so the income from the assets would revert to the owner of the assets. Seizing the assets would be seizing the assets. Other things are owned by the crown and/or the state and would thus revert to the state if the monarchy was abolished. Including, for example, the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. But not the holdings managed (not owned) by the Crown Estate.

Advocating revolution and seizure of assets by force is one thing. Doing so and pretending you're not is a different thing.

 

[LCG-xyz]

What exactly was wrong with Diana, Harry and Megan.

I assume you know what happened with Diana and how she was treated?

And Harry and Megan... wow, where do I start? Suffice it to say I don't like them and they don't fit with what a royal family should be. Good riddance.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

They inherited it from their father.

yes but it has been passed down to each monarch but was taken originally through conquest or just seized by the monarch.

No, I am not. I'm an atheist. Your god, whichever one that is, has nothing to do with me.

In order to be consistent, you would at least have to seize all assets with a line of inheritance going back more than a little way in time because if you go back further than a little way you will encounter something that would be considered unethical by current standards. But you're not consistent.

yes so am I and its just an expression,

And again, you're dishonestly advocating the seizure of privately owned assets by proclaiming that the owner of those assets doesn't own them because you say so. Everything I've said previously still applies. If I stole your car and proclaimed that it's my car and you never owned it, would that make it OK? Or would you still consider that theft? I would.

The current owner of those assets doesn't own them because she's the monarch. She owns them because she inherited them from her father, who owned them while he was alive. He in turn inherited them from one of his parents, etc, etc. Those assets are not owned by the state or by the crown. They're managed by the state. More specifically, they're managed by an organisation appointed to do so. But they're owned by a person. The agreement was and is clear - the income from the assets was assigned to the state. The assets themselves were not. Abolishing the monarchy would nullify that agreement, so the income from the assets would revert to the owner of the assets. Seizing the assets would be seizing the assets. Other things are owned by the crown and/or the state and would thus revert to the state if the monarchy was abolished. Including, for example, the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. But not the holdings managed (not owned) by the Crown Estate.

Advocating revolution and seizure of assets by force is one thing. Doing so and pretending you're not is a different thing.

The idea that a single person can own the majority of the coastline of this country is ridiculous. If push comes to shove and we were to ditch the monarchy I would expect the Windsors to gift it all to the state, if they refused then yes I would be in favour of it being seized by the state. The state should own these.

Lets say the queen dies and the next 20 people in line don't want to become king/queen. It should still pass down to Charles, he is her first child or does it go to 21st in line that takes the throne? If its 21st then its not an inherence, not in any normal sense, its tied to the monarch, if we don't have one then there is no one to inherit it.

 

[Tefal]

yes but it has been passed down to each monarch but was taken originally through conquest or just seized by the monarch.

So would you apply this to any personal wealth that was obtained legally at the time but now Illegally going back centuries?


Wouldn't that affect so many institutions and families to be unworkable?

 

[Blackjack Davy]

So would you apply this to any personal wealth that was obtained legally at the time but now Illegally going back centuries?


Wouldn't that affect so many institutions and families to be unworkable?

He's a hard left corbynite, it goes with the territory. Or lack of, in this case.

 

[kitkat9933]

He's a hard left corbynite, it goes with the territory. Or lack of, in this case.

Best comment ever

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

So would you apply this to any personal wealth that was obtained legally at the time but now Illegally going back centuries?


Wouldn't that affect so many institutions and families to be unworkable?

No, I'm talking about things like the UK coastline, palaces etc. They can keep their millions in the bank, its not that I'm talking about.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

He's a hard left corbynite, it goes with the territory. Or lack of, in this case.

How to make yourself look like on idiot in on one sentence. I can't stand Corbyn, he was the worst thing to happen to Labour and I'm a million miles from hard left. You've really not done very well there have you.

 

[rare]

It’s good to see the vote has the correct result.

 

[^TANK^]

Abolish.

 

[Freefaller]

One positive for the monarchy: Covid

 

[GGizmo]

The King getting involved in political activity by wearing the black poppy.

If I could change my vote on the poll I would.

Time to abolish the Monarchy.

 

[StriderX]

He's the king... being political is innate.

 

[Alt]

How would you vote in a referendum to remove absolutely all legislative power and influence that the monarchy holds and for the removal of the monarch as the head of state?

The UK is already a Republic, with a hereditary head of state (who performs a ceremonial function). This point is often missed.

 

[monkentage]

I'm republican in principle but an apolitical monarchy stops someone like Tony Blair doing a Recep Erdogan.