The royal wedding naysayers

[Sue U]

I suspect the difficulty would come in altering land ownership only for the royals. That would probably be a human rights violation

How would nationalizing property already considered to be a public asset and essentially held in trust for the nation be a human rights violation? It has never been true that in order to appropriate some property, the government must take all property. Eminent domain and environmental protection actions do so all the time, for example.

[Scooter]

Scooter--you think we'll do that after you guys torched the White House? Dream on.

Of course I don't, which is why I was making the point that demanding status quo ante as a condition for peace decades after a revolution has taken place is the stuff of morons.

[Big RR]

Sue doesn't one receive compensation in eminent domain or if an environmental action results effectively in the use of one's property?

In the case of the UK, if a law was enacted to seize the property of the royal family, I think they might have access to the EU for redress, although I'm not certain.

[Scooter]

It would appear silly to single out the royal family to expropriate their property without compensation when any theory under which it might be done would surely also apply to many other property holders.

Does this resentment of monarchy stem from the fact that so many modern monarchies are far more socially advanced and egalitarian than the republics in which the monarchy haters reside?

[thestoat]

How would nationalizing property already considered to be a public asset and essentially held in trust for the nation be a human rights violation?

There are plenty of properties in the UK considered to be a public asset, not just those in royal hands. Some are owned by the national trust, but many are in private hands, and have "open days" which help pay for their upkeep. And I don't think the royal properties are considered to be "essentially held in trust for the nation". Having said that, when the uninsured Windsor Castle burnt down a few years ago, I believe it was restored out of the public purse, though I seem to remember some concessions being granted for that.

It has never been true that in order to appropriate some property, the government must take all property. Eminent domain and environmental protection actions do so all the time, for example.

This is true, and the government is always able to appropriate property "for the national good" - but not without compensation.

[The Hen]

Best street graffiti I have seen for a while.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Not even hitched and already slurping around?

[Sean]

With his brother no less!

[Gob]

N-o-o-o-o-0! They'd have ginger kids!! better let Willy get his willy in first, rather have baldies than gingers...

[thestoat]

I thought so. Yes, Sean is right - the picture on the mug is of his brother. Inbreeding alive and well ...

[Andrew D]

It would appear silly to single out the royal family to expropriate their property without compensation when any theory under which it might be done would surely also apply to many other property holders.

"It would appear" but ...

It doesn't.

That is a common fallacy: "If we are not going to right all wrongs, then we should not right any wrongs."

[Sue U]

It would appear silly to single out the royal family to expropriate their property without compensation when any theory under which it might be done would surely also apply to many other property holders.

If you're going to start somewhere, why not start at the top? As for "without compensation," I think you can make an argument that the Saxe-Coburg-and-Gothas have been more than adequately compensated by the generations of use of and profit from the properties they currently hold and the great public expense historially incurred for their maintenance. But seeing as they're not really fit for any gainful employment, I suppose you'd have to make room for them on the dole and provide a council flat.

Does this resentment of monarchy stem from the fact that so many modern monarchies are far more socially advanced and egalitarian than the republics in which the monarchy haters reside?

I can speak only for myself, but I find hereditary royalty and aristocracy revolting. Other societies can do what they want, but I find it anathema to democracy.

[Andrew D]

But seeing as they're not really fit for any gainful employment, I suppose you'd have to make room for them on the dole and provide a council flat.

[Scooter]

That is a common fallacy: "If we are not going to right all wrongs, then we should not right any wrongs."

One could start by mounting a convincing argument that any "wrong" has been committed by the British monarchy in acquiring the property it currently holds...

And there is no fallacy in pointing out that laws that are constructed and applied in completely arbitrary fashion have tended to be unjust.

As for "without compensation," I think you can make an argument that the Saxe-Coburg-and-Gothas have been more than adequately compensated by the generations of use of and profit from the properties they currently hold and the great public expense historially incurred for their maintenance.

I suppose you could, if you characterized being allowed to benefit from only 15% of the income generated by one's own property as "more than adequate compensation" and having the remaining 85% of that income going to the public purse as "great public expense". Are you generally in favour of 85% taxation, or only when it comes to royalty?

But seeing as they're not really fit for any gainful employment...

Among whatever other skills she might possess, the Queen learned how to take apart a truck engine and put it back together again at an age when most girls aren't concerned with much more than worrying about the chip in their nail polish.

I find hereditary royalty and aristocracy revolting. Other societies can do what they want, but I find it anathema to democracy.

And many countries with monarchies are among the world's most vibrant democracies.

And as I have said similarly on other occasions just because a country doesn't have an hereditary aristocracy doesn't mean it doesn't have an aristocratic class which presents an even greater threat to democracy than most hereditary monarchies.

[@meric@nwom@n]

Boy was I ever glad my invitation got lost in the mail when I read that the wedding cake is a fruit cake. Yuck. No one over here eats fruitcake, we just pass the same one around each year. *







*thank you Johnny Carson.

[thestoat]

If you're going to start somewhere, why not start at the top?

How far back would you go? Should we return America to the Native Indians?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Or return the 'native Indians' (?) to Siberia.

Everybody back to the Olduvai quickly!

[Sue U]

If you're going to start somewhere, why not start at the top?

How far back would you go? Should we return America to the Native Indians?

The Native Americans were on the losing end of a war of conquest; many signed treaties ceding their former territory. To the extent of any unfairness in implementing the treaties, or otherwise imporperly obtaining land and resource rights, a claim for compensation/reparations may be appropriate. (Indeed, many such actions have been instituted and tribes have recovered billions of dollars from the government.) But what we're talking about for the UK would be a political decision to expropriate certain privately held properties for the benefit of the nation as a whole. It is not an analogous circumstance, except to the extent the UK government might recognize some legitimacy of the (former) property-holders title in the estates and provide compensation on that basis.

Are you generally in favour of 85% taxation, or only when it comes to royalty?

Particularly when it comes to royalty, the French Solution seeming to be rather out of vogue lately.

[Scooter]

I guess y'all would know more about that than us, what with four presidents assassinated within a 100 year span...

[The Hen]

Boy was I ever glad my invitation got lost in the mail when I read that the wedding cake is a fruit cake. Yuck. No one over here eats fruitcake, we just pass the same one around each year. *







*thank you Johnny Carson.

There is actually two cakes for this wedding. They have decided to have a "groom's cake" as well. This one will be made of tea biscuits and chocolate! Nommy, nommy, nommy, nom! I used to make his Groom's cake as a slice in another lifetime.