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

Would you get rid of the monarchy?

  • Abolish the monarchy

    Votes: 326 30.5%
  • Keep the monarchy

    Votes: 743 69.5%

  • Total voters
    1,069
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
12,085
Location
London, UK
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.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
12,085
Location
London, UK
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.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2007
Posts
5,581
Location
London
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?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
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.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
12,085
Location
London, UK
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.
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
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?
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
12,085
Location
London, UK
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.
 

Alt

Alt

Associate
Joined
8 May 2022
Posts
14
Location
London
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom