Royalty ruling your country?

[Carbonox]

There's a difference between inheriting your parents' material wealth and inheriting a position of power.

 

[Liquid]

Out of curiosity, I'd be interested to know the reasons for the three people who voted yes.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Your saying the Queen doesn't own what she owns because she inherited it. That's the problem.

That's how property usually works, yes. If I stole a car and kept it for many years and then passed it on to my children then it would remain stolen and liable to removal. We've seen something similar with artworks that were stolen in the 30s and 40s from Jewish families.

 

[Tired Tyres]

That's how property usually works, yes. If I stole a car and kept it for many years and then passed it on to my children then it would remain stolen and liable to removal. We've seen something similar with artworks that were stolen in the 30s and 40s from Jewish families.

What exactly was stolen rather than given to the King/Queen?

 

[Sanji Himura]

The land that I speak of was owned by Royal Family for hundreds of years prior to the land deal with Parliament after us Americans won independence. The debt that I speak of was the king fighting to maintain control of that land, which realistically speaking, ran up thousands of pounds.

But never did I say that George the Third sold the land in question. He simply forfeited the income that came from those lands while maintaining ownership of them.

Hence that is why you folks in the UK are only paying about 65 pence to maintain the Royal Family, and not something that is astronomically higher. Besides, the money that they earn from tourism alone is roughly 350% times that of what the land would have brought them.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The land that I speak of was owned by Royal Family for hundreds of years prior to the land deal with Parliament after us Americans won independence. The debt that I speak of was the king fighting to maintain control of that land, which realistically speaking, ran up thousands of pounds.

The land from the Earldom that forms the Duchy, for example, should have remained public land. Using such inherited titles to lay claim is, in my opinion, morally wrong. That goes in answer to your own statement and that of @Tired Tyres.

But never did I say that George the Third sold the land in question. He simply forfeited the income that came from those lands while maintaining ownership of them.

Which lands precisely? The debts that Britain and Ireland were accruing at the time were through failures in the East India Company and through the expense of wars with Spain, France and America (all on the American continent). I think it's safe to say that those lands were forfeited in their entirety as was the viability of EIC. The crown income after that time was from the duchies and the sovereign grant - all other income was diverted via parliament.

Hence that is why you folks in the UK are only paying about 65 pence to maintain the Royal Family

Utterly incorrect, I've already posted much more accurate figures for you. You're only looking at the sovereign grant - that is far from being the extent of the maintenance that we pay for this uber-rich family.

Besides, the money that they earn from tourism alone...

The money that they earn from tourism via their own shops and products goes to... them. Not to the public.

...is roughly 350% times that of what the land would have brought them.

Sources required.