UK Politics

Yeah unfortunately is is all sort off intentional.

When George 3 was fighting the US civil war. It was very much the UK Royal Family vs American rebels. The parliment did not care. While now the UK military still answers to the King. We all know the parliment is in charge... right.

But if back in George 3S Time. Royal families throughout Europe were losing power. If he did not offer the profits to parliment. His family would have been forced to sell the land privately. So when the parliment of the time saw the long term advantage. They also protected this unique and odd Monarchy we have.

Look up who owns the crown estates. You will see the answer is clear. But the language less so. Part of it talk about G3 surrendering the land to parliment. But the laws enacted by parliment clearly place it in a trust belonging to the crown managed by the monarch.

Throughout history the crown the nation and the Monarch as a person. Have been referred to as single separate entities in law while all one in public. G3 used the parlement to protect that separation. By expending the crown into law as a unique legal corperation. He used the fact that parliment was sovereign (literally as in it represents the power of the king) to protect his family.

It is why all these folks claiming the crown estates are public land. 15bln estimated assets. Sort of pisses me off. Legally it is not. But G3 knew he was using the idea that the crown was the nation to pull the wool over democratic eyes.

He created a legally protected trust that the government is fiscally obliged to protect. As if the UK crown collapsed. The ownership of its assets would be a complete nightmare to cleanup.

Read my answers above.

Because that is not technically what is happening.

Believe me I am not a royalist. But do think we need a real democracy before becoming a Republic. Getting rid of the royals will not speed that up. Just give more power to the current sovereign parliment.

What to many brits fail to realise is. The sovereign grant is funded entirely from the crown estates. The income from the crown estates is all paid to parliment. (Old trick G3 used to ensure the UK government was fiscally obliged to protect the family.)

At least 12% of that income must be returned to the family as a grant to support the duties of the crown. Including maintainace of the property.

So technically and legally the crown estates is a approx 15bln unique corperation defines by parliment as belonging to the crown. Owned in trust(sort of) by the current monarch.

It must return 12%+ to the monarch to support crown lands and crown tasks.

So if you think of it as any other property rich corp and ignore the crown part.

They are paying less taxes because there costs are higher over the next few years. It is just because the corps profits are given to the government unlike any other. The government has to return the costs for them to spend.

The Crown estates earned parliment around 450m last year. So the new grant represents about 25-30%

So the corp that is legally required to pay under 88% (ie at least 12% paid to support) is now paying 70-75% tax.

And a rowboat and a supertanker both displace water.

There is a difference between working income and investment income.

Investment income is directly attributable to the investment and the past actions that have wealth in the first place.

Working income is not, you might ask who's paying you and where they got that money. But you have worked and added value in a way that generates income tied to your work.

Most people do not have generational wealth. Their money is traceable to their work. In some cases their parents work. Occasionally a grandparents work.

It's possible that your work is extracting value you shouldn't be entitled to extract, but it's usually well removed from the real problem.

The royal family's investments go well back well beyond any of them did any work.

You're right that the further back you go, the more likely it is you'll find an atrocity. This is quite common with talk about reparations for slavery and racism in the US and UK.

For the duchy of Cornwall as an example we're talking about untaxed wealth since 1337. On land stolen from Cornish people. After the earldom was essentially taken by force in 1068.

By the current owner's 25x great grandfather on his mother's side and 31x great grandfather through the direct royal line. (Prince William)

A subjugated population living in surfdom. As voting rights were tied to property they didn't get a vote until 1918.

The Representation of the People Act extended the vote to all men over 21 and most women over 30

Then 1928 women got the equal right to vote. All men and women over 21.

The royal estates are the 3rd largest land owners in the UK. Behind only the forestry commission and the ministry of defence. About 3% of the land is owned by royal or those descended from nobility.

Then there's the large amount of land in the hands of the church and private schools which has been to directly influence the rich few. There's the enormous wealth gained from selling land on for mineral and resource extraction.

But sure after almost a century of something resembling democracy you're going to pretend someone earning a paycheck is the same as someone benefitting from a near millennia of wealth extraction under the threat of force.

And that's just talking about land in the UK. The amount of assets they've gained from empire is another thing to talk about.