jefmcg
Guru
You're also a shape-shifting lizard?I appear to belong to the same species...unfortunately
You're also a shape-shifting lizard?I appear to belong to the same species...unfortunately
Nice menu.
And if he did so, the Duchy of Cornwall (or of Lancaster if that was the stage he did it) would presumably transfer to his successor, or to the government if that triggered a republic - which is why you and I among others see the Royal Duchies more as state assets used for the support of the monarchy rather than a private resource that makes the monarchy self-supporting.That doesn't force him to follow in their footsteps though. Although obviously hugely difficult, it would not be impossible for him to walk away from it.
They are self financing in the same way the Duke of Westminster is self financing.And if he did so, the Duchy of Cornwall (or of Lancaster if that was the stage he did it) would presumably transfer to his successor, or to the government if that triggered a republic - which is why you and I among others see the Royal Duchies more as state assets used for the support of the monarchy rather than a private resource that makes the monarchy self-supporting.
I continue however to support the monarchy. I just don't think they can sensibly be viewed as self-financing.
I am in danger of seeming like a dog with a bone so I apologise.They are self financing in the same way the Duke of Westminster is self financing.
Both derive income from inherited assets dating back hundreds of years.
You’re probably correct, but that is because the government have reigned in the power of the monarchy.I am in danger of seeming like a dog with a bone so I apologise.
If the Duke of Westminster wanted to sell his entire estate, move the resulting money (after appropriate taxes) to a foreign bank, and emigrate, could he do so? I think yes (though he may have voluntarily put his money in some complicated trust arrangement that precludes this).
If Charles or William wanted to forego the crown and do likewise with the Cornwall money, could they? I suspect not.
I am not however an expert in the precise trust arrangements of either Westminster or Cornwall.
As the thread seems to be turning into a general discussion of the monarchy (as it was always likely to), let me hasten it on its way.You’re probably correct, but that is because the government have reigned in the power of the monarchy.
Seems a bit unfair when you look at it like that.
Can I nominate this for homonym of the day?but that is because the government have reigned in the power of the monarchy
Oh dear....This alone should be enough to persuade anyone who's on the fence about a republic and a constitution.our head of state, who in some way is seen as representing our character as a people