The MOnarchy

No, that's not what I meant. I did only mean the state-owned ones. Looking back at the way I worded that part of the post, I can see I didn't say that clearly and have edited it accordingly (or will have when I've typed this!).

The last paragraph though was firmly tongue-in-cheek.

 

You've missed the point. Of course tenants who rent have no title to the house (allthough there's some merit to suggesting that if someone's lived in a flat/house for all their lives they ought to have some kind of title or interest but that's another debate).

I was talking about people who own houses in these special areas - (I'm not sure they are the same thing as Crown Estates) where in any other circumstances dying intestate would have meant the property passing to the next of kin but because their property has this special status it reverts instead back to the crown. I'm hazy on the details because I saw a documentary about it a year or two ago where in one case agents representing the crown were utterly merciless in their pursuit to get back this small 2 bedroom house to the extent that the descendants of the old lady who had died were barely allowed in to collect personal effects :inferno:

The point was, the crown already has so much land so why does it ruthlessly and mercilessly pursue "intestate" cases like this to grab back things that are "theirs" only by some peculiar legal technicality?

As for leasholds - they can be inherited. The whole premise of leases is BS anyway. When you own something you should own it, not some pseudo ownership that really means you have nothing. I would strongly urge anyone in the UK never to buy a leashold property. These days even with flats there's absolutely no excuse not to be able to buy them as freehold or at the very least have an option to buy the freehold soon after buying the leashold (I believe that the right to buying the freehold is now the law).

Michael.

 

On the subject of the Royal Family I think you're overreacting Julian. I don't think anyone here has suggested stringing them up or putting them infront of a firing squad. If as you suggest all they do is ceremonial duties anyway then why retain the power of veto?

What the UK needs is an elected head of state who does have a useable power of veto to be able to balance the government/prime minister of the day. It's the way that most President/Prime Minister setups work in the countries that have them (eg France and Portugal).

My ideal society? That would be utopia

Michael.

 

It is an artificial edifice of phoneys.

Its too depressing to elaborate.

 

michael,
to be honest, given human nature i think a case could be made in favour of having a head of state who has been trained to fulfill that role since birth rather than having some power hungry populist fill the position. it's swings and roundabouts really.

my main objection is the idea that property owned for generations by a family (no matter who they are) should be confiscated just because their ancestors were utter bastards 1500 years ago. where would it stop? an inheritance being forefit or wife being evicted if the parent or spouse was imprisoned, because they might have paid part of the mortgage with stolen money?

cookie,
i's like an onion, it has many layers and it stinks.

cheers

julian

 

Out of curiosity, how do you sell the lease for a mid-floor flat? Isn't the lease mainly to do with the land the place is situated on (eg my sister's house, where the land is LEASEhold - and it's a house FFS)? If so, than you can't sell the same plot of land x times, where x=number of floors?

Leasehold does indeed suck though - in cases like my sister's, I feel mortgage lenders shouldn't lend out on property, since technically nothing is yours, and thus nothing is the bank's to repossess... What kind of bunghole buys a leasehold house (my sister has an IQ of about 3 and a lower mental age, so that explains hers!).

 

The reasons in your first paragraph Dom are why it used not to be possible to own the freehold of a flat. Technically, it still isn't but this is how it works.

It requires all the leaseholders of a block of flats to agree and work together. They have to form a Company or Association which buys the freehold off the current freeholder. They are obliged to sell and can't charge silly money for it either but I don't know the time limits that the law sets - you'd need to check.

Then, each flat owner gets issued a share in the company that now owns the freehold. Technically, the flat owners still don't own the freehold but they own a share of it and it means they can then easily extend leases and otherwise do things that only freeholders could previously do.

Michael.

 

Can you find a reference to this? I cannot. http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/manuals/tsemmanual/tsem7800/tsem7830.htm seems to cover it.

Perhaps it reflects leases?

Paul

 

I will try and find something. At least that IR page reminded me of the area the documentary was about which was the Duchy of Lancaster.

I'm quite positive (the IR page you posted notwithstanding) that in the documentary the house passed to the Duchy of Lancaster even though there were surviving next of kin (otherwise it would have been no big deal and it wouldn't have stuck in my memory like it did).

Michael.

 

The royal family is an anachronistic institution whose laugh-by date expired years ago. The mere thought of a head of state based on the simple privilege of birth should be anathema to a modern democracy –_particularly as our monarch's amorphous relationship with parliament and the government is one of the key reasons why a written constitution has not been forthcoming.

While there's no denying the historical role of the monarchy, that was the past and it has no part to play in our future. In fact, the sooner we get rid of them the sooner we can stop feeding on our artery-clogging history and move on with a bit more purpose.

Furthermore, it's the fact that their wealth is unearned that is so distasteful (and wholly at odds with the post-Thatcherite meritocracy). Take away their state support (ring any bells?), give back the land and treasures that notionally belong to the nation anyway and let's see if they can stand on their own two feet –_just like the rest of us have to.

 

oh dear ron, spouting the same tired old drivel only this time with a spin of idiocy... lets see.
we should....
steal property that's belonged to the same family for 1500 years
ditch our heritage because..well for no real reason really.
ignore any lessons learnt from the past.

am i getting this right?

oh yes and show me proof that the monarchy is holding back a constitution. i thought it was parliament that rejected the idea so that they could enact ridiculous freedom squashing bills like the criminal justice act maybe if our head of state was more than just ceremonial it would have done somethign about these things but here we are with people wanting to get rid of another link in the chain of govornment. by the way i believe that the more links in the governmental chain the better, that way it takes longer for a bill to be passed, ideally there would be an internet based referendum where nothing would get passed without a clear 70% majority. therefore nothing would get passed unless it was blindingly obvious that it was needed and things would not get worse as quickly - yes i'm in a pessimistic mood today.
cheers


julian

 

There are an amazing number of Marxists around here.

The Royal accounts are very open and accessible. Start here, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2002/the_royal_accounts/default.stm

In contrast trying to find out how much the Prime Minister's Office, Downing Street, Chequers, Dorneywood, Admiralty Arch and all the other trappings of state cost is much harder. If anybody can find some recent headline figures I'd be interested.

I suspect that the Monarchy is very cheap and efficient compared to the Government in general.

There is obviously a good argument to be had about how government in general should be structured. I'm not convinced that what we have today post Blair Reform is better for the country than that he started with. The old style Lords was indefensible, but actually worked reasonably well, annoying governments of all colours. The hereditary peers owed their position to nobody, today peers all have to lick bottoms to get appointed. Much worse than before.

Paul

 

Appropriate, nationalise, reclaim, repossess, seize? Steal, if you like. How does 'easy come, easy go' translate in Latin? Rationalisation is the mantra, and there's a lot more fat yet to be trimmed from this particular calf.

Ummm, go and check the 'family' tree.

Like the monarchy? Like the notion they embody everything that is great about this country? Like the final dribblings of the formal class structure they represent. Those suffocating aspects of it, yes.

What did you have in mind? That kings and queens are a really great idea, actually, and have always had the best interests of their subjects at heart?

Because a written constitution would have to formalise and quantify the role of the monarchy, either stripping it entirely of any notional influence or giving it genuine power. Conjecture? Perhaps, but no more ridiculous than the assertion that the Queen currently provides a valuable check against the excesses of government, or provides a vital ceremonial role.

I suspect you are right. But that is not a sufficient argument in favour of an unelected, unaccountable monarchy.

Don't see how that necessarily follows. Still, it could be worse, they could be monarchists.

 

You disdain unearned wealth. You want to remove it from people by force. QED.

It's a very odd position to simply want a different constitutional arrangement on principle, yet not care whether it betters one that has evolved for over 1000 years and seems to have turned out OK compared to most others.

Again rather Marxist. Revolution and damn the consequenced for the ordinary people.

Paul

 

I thought that most people in this thread have simply asked that they be left with 'their' money and not have any more of ours, while returning large amounts of land [for which they have no use] back to national ownership. If thats Marxist, are the Norwegians marxist? The Dutch, etc...?

Incidentally, I see that I voted for 'scrap them' as did most others..but I suppose 'keep them - differently' is the correct vote. Still, if they were toasted, I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

 

so graham, let me get this straight, if you own something that you're not using, then it should be nationalised? what a ridiculous thing to say. i've a small greenhouse that's not in use at the moment lets nationalise that.

it does seem that people have some vague nebulous grudge against the monarchy which they want to act on by violating their human rights. i wonder how much of this ill feeling is due to media manipulation over the past 25 years and what is true objection. i suspect that the example michael gave of the monarchy's ruthlessness in repossessing a house was given negative spin by the programmes production team in order to sensationalise what would otherwise have been a bit of a dull program. yet another reason why i avoid news programmes like the memetic bse they really are.

cheers


julian

 

Julian the two are completely different things. It's absurd to compare land owned by normal private individuals to land owned by the royal family. A lot of royal land hasn't been accquired by any means that would be judged to be fair by any rational person. They started out by owning the whole frigging country and then at first gave bits and pieces away to dukes, lords etc and it's only relatively recently that mere "commoners" like us could own any land at all!

It's tricky to say how royal land ought to be redistributed if it ever came to that but I see it something as valid as the way a lot of white owned land has been (and still is being) redistributed in South Africa. It's unfortunate that due to Mugabe being an utter tyrant it doesn't look possible to do the same thing peacefully in Zimbabwe

Michael.

 

Paul,

To pigeonhole some of the individuals who have contributed to this thread as 'Marxists', is akin to someone likewise categorising your learned self as a hubristic idol of the sanctuary of knowledge.

Shallow

 

and there lies the crux of my argument. the thought that the royal family is somehow less entitled to property than others is dangerous as where would it stop, perhaps all old families who own vast tracts of land should have that land confiscated, then why not anyone who owns more than 10 houses, 5 houses, 2 houses, 1 house, oops hello mr marx.

say what you like about the monarchs role in govornment. i happen to believe that the current mix of elected and hereditary has the potential to offer the best of both systems.

cheers


julian

 

Not at all. It would be quite straightforward to draft a law that had very definite boundaries. In any case, I'm not suggesting the land should be handed out to the general public but more that perhaps that someone like the National Trust should take it over and allow the public to enojy it.

What would be "the best" of the hereditary system then? Any system where large numbers of people (hereditary peers) get to have a very decisive role in the running of the country merely because of who they were born to can't possibly have any legitimate claim to being a democracy. The sooner the UK has a fully elected upper house and head of state the better.

Michael.