Why does the Queen want to hide her wealth?
Discussion
holes might cause problems.The Spruce Goose said:
Can't see a topic but what's the issue here?
The fact it is a Guardian story so hardly anyone will have read it?Of the tiny fraction of the population who read it, most will understand it is nothing more than the wolf whistle journalism that the Guardian does better than the Mail and is likely to be a non story spun to within an inch of fake news.
sherman said:
Shes going to die in the next 5ish years. Is she just trying to reduce Charlies tax implications?
Its about something that happened getting on for 50 years ago. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55975199
The Guardian newspaper airing its anti-monarchy views again.
This all took place during the early 1970s. The actual legislation finally went onto the Statute Book under the Callaghan Labour Government although work on it began under the Heath Conservative Government.
On the Sunday Times Rich List HM is now quite a long way down. I recall at one point a long time ago she was thought to be one of the wealthiest women in the Country, if not the World.
This all took place during the early 1970s. The actual legislation finally went onto the Statute Book under the Callaghan Labour Government although work on it began under the Heath Conservative Government.
On the Sunday Times Rich List HM is now quite a long way down. I recall at one point a long time ago she was thought to be one of the wealthiest women in the Country, if not the World.
The interesting bit is that the story appears to reveal the existence of a channel by which Buck House can influence legislation at a relatively early stage, rather than merely providing a ceremonial rubber stamp after the event.
The wealth thing is just the background as to how that channel appears to have come about - or an illustration of how it might be abused, depending on your POV.
The wealth thing is just the background as to how that channel appears to have come about - or an illustration of how it might be abused, depending on your POV.
Why does anyone want to know what her private wealth is? We all know the origins of the wealth of the monarchy, and the history of how we arrived here. Beyond that, why does anyone want or need to know?
How many people like their private wealth published? Does everyone suggesting the Queen is wrong to want privacy on the topic feel comfortable with their own wealth, in all its glory (or not) published? If not, why not? (Again, the original origins are well understood. They really make little difference - if ours were cleaner than the monarch's, there should be even fewer issues with publishing).
Moreover, why is this being dredged up now? AIUI it was something done a while ago.
Also AIUI, the monarch still has some privilege in decision making and has used it from time to time. No major articles on that front (and I think some are potentially more...of interest).
How many people like their private wealth published? Does everyone suggesting the Queen is wrong to want privacy on the topic feel comfortable with their own wealth, in all its glory (or not) published? If not, why not? (Again, the original origins are well understood. They really make little difference - if ours were cleaner than the monarch's, there should be even fewer issues with publishing).
Moreover, why is this being dredged up now? AIUI it was something done a while ago.
Also AIUI, the monarch still has some privilege in decision making and has used it from time to time. No major articles on that front (and I think some are potentially more...of interest).
JPJPJP said:
The more interesting questions are about the origin of the wealth, not the amount
You know the crown estate (around $12bn) hands over all it's income around £1.8-2bn turnover, £350m profit and the queen gets a fraction back every year. She's also been using her own money for some of the repairs, refurbishments etcImagine how much you'd moan if you effectively paid 90% tax
Byker28i said:
JPJPJP said:
The more interesting questions are about the origin of the wealth, not the amount
You know the crown estate (around $12bn) hands over all it's income around £1.8-2bn turnover, £350m profit and the queen gets a fraction back every year. She's also been using her own money for some of the repairs, refurbishments etcImagine how much you'd moan if you effectively paid 90% tax
Pit Pony said:
The Spruce Goose said:
Can't see a topic but what's the issue here?
The issue is that the queen has right of veto on any law that upsets her. And elected representatives can't stop her.
Whether it’s Royal Assent or Consent, the monarch merely rubber stamps stuff as a formality and nothing more. If she were to do anything else a fairly hefty constitutional crisis would be the result.
Whether she or her minions influenced the decision is another matter but that will never be known.
The Queen/Monarch has theoretically right of veto over an awful lot. They have a theoretical right to do lots of things. The intelligent Monarch knows not to be so bloody stupid as to practice it in reality. The even wiser Monarch learns how to deploy that influence so as to provide guidance, perhaps some perspective and not piss people off.
Id regard it as part of the damn job description! Otherwise it goes tits up, both publicly and drastically and Monarch is invariably on the wrong end of the outcome.
Id regard it as part of the damn job description! Otherwise it goes tits up, both publicly and drastically and Monarch is invariably on the wrong end of the outcome.
DeejRC said:
The Queen/Monarch has theoretically right of veto over an awful lot. They have a theoretical right to do lots of things. The intelligent Monarch knows not to be so bloody stupid as to practice it in reality. The even wiser Monarch learns how to deploy that influence so as to provide guidance, perhaps some perspective and not piss people off.
Id regard it as part of the damn job description! Otherwise it goes tits up, both publicly and drastically and Monarch is invariably on the wrong end of the outcome.
I think that there is considerable scholarly discussion as to whether the "right" of the Monarch to unilaterally withhold Royal Assent still even exists. I think that the view is that she could only do so if she were advised/authorised to so so by the cabinet, or something. Id regard it as part of the damn job description! Otherwise it goes tits up, both publicly and drastically and Monarch is invariably on the wrong end of the outcome.
IroningMan said:
The interesting bit is that the story appears to reveal the existence of a channel by which Buck House can influence legislation at a relatively early stage, rather than merely providing a ceremonial rubber stamp after the event.
The wealth thing is just the background as to how that channel appears to have come about - or an illustration of how it might be abused, depending on your POV.
This is the issue.The wealth thing is just the background as to how that channel appears to have come about - or an illustration of how it might be abused, depending on your POV.
I wonder though: to what extent has Her Maj (or her lawyers) ever used this influence apart from on a specific law that concerned the disclosure of her wealth?
If it was a one off, then yes, it's just dog whistle politics by the guardian, preaching to the choir of anti monarchists.
If the graun can find a pattern of influence beyond this isolated example, then I might pay more attention.
I am a monarchist, as I've never technically renounced my cub scout promise!
Edit: did I just write monarchist??? Idiot. I meant royalist of course
Edited by Ian Geary on Monday 8th February 13:49
AJL308 said:
I think that there is considerable scholarly discussion as to whether the "right" of the Monarch to unilaterally withhold Royal Assent still even exists. I think that the view is that she could only do so if she were advised/authorised to so so by the cabinet, or something.
It came up a bit during brexit/proroguing saga....a bit like the Q anon crowd saying trump is still the lawful president :ROFL:Practically, the royals haven't refused royal assent for hundreds of years, so to all intents and purposes, they can't.
I am only going to go and find my pitchfork should the royals actually deny parliament this...not because of we guardian wind up merchant.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff