The royal wedding naysayers

[rubato]

"... I asked a nearby American if they were still grateful that we had given them their country

Which is why white Englishmen didn't have the same voting rights white Americans did in 1800 until after WWI.

Pussies.


yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

What is amazing is that the monarchy is even a serious issue. A bunch of inbreds who, by virtue of an aristocratic system which any non-retarded third-grade kid could intellectually annihilate, ended up unjustifiably rich. The people of the UK should care about this: They should overthrow it.

(Yes, I know that the monarchy is popular among Britons. And tens of millions of people in the US are still misguided enough to vote Republican. Same difference.)

But the rest of the world? Who is Sultan of Brunei is at least as important as who is incestuous pseudo-monarch of the oxymoronically named United Kingdom.

[thestoat]

But what would Britain do without the tourist trade?

Ah, there are lots of other places to see in the UK outside of the Royal houses. A nice bunch of stones to the west are actually pretty fascinating - and have a higher IQ than some other tourist attractions ...

[thestoat]

What is amazing is that the monarchy is even a serious issue.

I believe its importance is in a terminal decline - it is (from everything I can gather) the older generation who still revere them (70 years +). Anyway, they are only figureheads.

[BoSoxGal]

Sure, but they cost the citizenry quite a bit for their support and upkeep.

You lot could keep the castles and such and open them to tourists as museums. Just throw out the actual monarchs, who are rather useless in this day and age.

I know that when I finally get to the UK, I'll be far more interested in a literary tour (and yes, Stonehenge!) than anything whatsoever having to do with 'royals'.

eta: I read a couple of articles online this weekend about Kate Middleton that infuriated me - about how Prince William's chums amongst the nobility used to (maybe still do) make wisecracks about her commoner status whenever she walked into a room. I think it's ridiculous to be elitist about the wealth one's family has acquired; much more ridiculous to be elitist about one's inbreeding.

[thestoat]

BigSkyGal - I have to agree with most of what you said. However, I believe that the royals do bring in more money in tourism than they take from the civil list. The queen owns the royal residences of Sandringham House in Norfolk and Balmoral. The crown estate owns Buck Palace (and many other properties beside). Basically if they were turfed out they'd own vast tracts of land (currently leased to the government for the use of us commoners).

However, inheritance tax is 40% ... so after a few generations they'd not be so fabulously wealthy after all ...

[Gob]

The Royal Family cost every person in the UK 69p last year - an increase of 3p on the previous year, Buckingham Palace accounts show.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8124022.stm

[thestoat]

I want my 69p back!

[Andrew D]

The queen owns the royal residences of Sandringham House in Norfolk and Balmoral. The crown estate owns Buck Palace (and many other properties beside). Basically if they were turfed out they'd own vast tracts of land (currently leased to the government for the use of us commoners).

That assumes that the queen and the crown estate rightfully own those properties. If, however, those fortunes are, like almost all royal and aristocratic fortunes, the result, ultimately, of theft, plunder, and brutal oppression, then the queen and the crown estate do not rightfully own a pot to piss in.

[thestoat]

That assumes that the queen and the crown estate rightfully own those properties. If, however, those fortunes are, like almost all royal and aristocratic fortunes, the result, ultimately, of theft, plunder, and brutal oppression, then the queen and the crown estate do not rightfully own a pot to piss in.

Well yes, that is true. But many countries could have a similar charge laid against them. How far back would you go? When the royals gained their wealth it was, perhaps, l;egal for them to do so - or at least not against the law, since there was no law, so to speak. In the 1500s piracy in the UK (against Spain in particular) was positively encouraged and rewarded.

[Andrew D]

One does not necessarily need to go back at all. When the US emancipated all slaves in the US, the US did not go back to determine who had originally acquired the slaves, whether any of those people had broken the then-exsting law, and so forth. The US simply decided that asserted property rights in slaves would no longer be recognized. Slaveowners lost their "property" instantaneously, and that was that. Likewise, Britain (England, the UK, whatever) could simply decide that asserted property rights in royal and (other) aristocratic fortunes are no longer recognized. The royals and (other) aristocrats would lose their "property" instantaneously, and that would be that.

[thestoat]

I am uncomfortable with retrospective laws (and, by extension taxes). How would you feel if you did something completely legal 5 years ago and were then thrown in jail for it today after a shift in the law?

[Andrew D]

That would be a violation of the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws -- a constitutional prohibition with which I entirely agree. (It springs from the idea that people who genuinely want to conform their behavior to the law are entitled to know the standard to which they must conform their behavior; or, put in terms of social good rather than individual entitlement, if we want people to conform their behavior to the law, we need to let them know how to do that.)

But I am not talking about throwing anyone in jail or otherwise punishing anyone. I am not talking about prosecuting any royals or (other) aristocrats even for their own misdeeds, if those misdeeds were not unlawful when they were committed, let alone prosecuting them for the misdeeds of their ancestors. I am talking about a (collective) determination that something which was considered property is no longer considered property.

When the US emancipated all slaves, the people of the US did exactly that: They collectively determined that something which had been considered property was no longer property, but they did not punish anyone for previously having owned slaves.

Should slaveowners have been compensated for the loss of their "property" -- the slaves? The US was in no position to compensate the slaveowners for that loss; the US simply did not have the money to do it. (That is a point on which historians appear to me overwhelmingly, perhaps universally, to agree.) Should the US have declined to free the slaves on the ground that the US could not afford to compensate the slaveowners for their alleged "property" loss?

[MajGenl.Meade]

When the US emancipated all slaves, the people of the US did exactly that: They collectively determined that something which had been considered property was no longer property, but they did not punish anyone for previously having owned slaves.

Should slaveowners have been compensated for the loss of their "property" -- the slaves? The US was in no position to compensate the slaveowners for that loss; the US simply did not have the money to do it. (That is a point on which historians appear to me overwhelmingly, perhaps universally, to agree.) Should the US have declined to free the slaves on the ground that the US could not afford to compensate the slaveowners for their alleged "property" loss?

Well now Andrew - not exactly. Resolutions were passed to compensate slaveowners, with Lincoln arguing that shortening the war by X days could be achieved by purchase of freedom for Y slaves. He was right in that two years less of war would probably have been enough - but no-one believe the war would last that long and besides it was good for business. Plus the slaveowners were not listening too well - or they'd have heard the bell tolling

The 'people of the US' Andrew did not leap up instead and shout "Goodie let's free the slaves in the South" no matter how noble you make it sound. The fact is that the USA would NOT have emancipated any slaves if the southern states had not persisted in their war and in declaring themselves no longer bound by the Constitution. Congress and Presidents alike declared often their non-intent (their inability) to interfere in the institution in states in which it was legal. Despite Lincoln's oft-repeated claim that the rebellious states in fact were still in the Union, he seized any opportunity (when necessary) to pretend that they were not. Thus the preliminary emancipation proclamation (a war measure not at all altruistic) freed the slaves in areas that were in rebellion against the Federal government and which it did NOT control.

And I think that 600,000+ dead was punishment enough on both sides plus a little more reading on Reconstruction might be worthwhile. The U.S. finally did the right thing in a blundering sort of accidental way

More on point - I thought the o.p. was about Charles and Camilla until I realised that it was not "The Royal Wedding Neighsayers" after all. Anyway, even Buck Pal is open to the commoners these days (dreadful queues though) and that would not be nearly as much fun if there wasn't a royal family living there. Piss off and leave them alone

Meade

[Andrew D]

Still and all, the slaves were freed, and their owners were not compensated. Was that theft -- the taking of property without just compensation? (By the way, did the resolutions of compensation provide for compensation at fair market value? Just curious.) Or was it simply recognition that the claims of ownership were invalid and, therefore, did not require compensation? If the latter, why not the same for royal and (other) aristocratic fortunes?

[Lord Jim]

"I am talking about a (collective) determination that something which was considered property is no longer considered property"

[Andrew D]

That's right: Freeing the slaves was an exercise in Leninism.

Just another entry in Lord Jim's Fuck The Facts I Don't Care And That's All That Matters file ....

Come one, Jim, when you present that sort of thing to people in your real life, do they take it at all seriously? (Does anyone in your real life take you at all seriously?) Or are you so ashamed of that kind of crap that you will only post it here?

Of course, you could present an argument -- you know, evidence and reasoning, the kinds of things you prefer to disdain rather than engage -- that freeing the slaves at the expense of their owners was somehow wrong. But you won't, because you know that such an argument would be both bullshit and embarrassing.

Guess what: The argument is bullshit no matter where you present it, and even here, you have embarrassed yourself.

[loCAtek]

off topic

[Lord Jim]

That's right: Freeing the slaves was an exercise in Leninism.

Here's a brain teaser:

The seizing of land, property, and wealth by the British Government would be more like:

A. The seizing of land, property, and wealth by the Bolshevik Government.

B. The freeing of the slaves.

Okay, pencils down.

Anyone besides Captain Obtuse not get "A"?

[thestoat]

Anyone besides Captain Obtuse not get "A"?

But I am not talking about throwing anyone in jail or otherwise punishing anyone

Confiscating someone's property could surely be seen as punishment.

And your analogy with slaves is, as LJ so nicely put it, flawed. It would hold if, at the same time, everyone's houses, castles and mansions were freed. If only a proportion of them were so freed then at the very least a reason should be given for why the royals were singled out. Yet you state

One does not necessarily need to go back [in time] at all

.

I am sure to be on shaky ground here since you are the legal mind, not me, but I am curious how you could square that.