republicans, over here!

[arghpleasestop]

OK, it's been 24 hours now.

Can I say it yet?

Long live the king - any king! - you must be joking. How on earth can it be the 21st century and there is still a hereditary monarchy of 'special people with the right blood' who wear crowns, live in palaces and play a formal role in politics?

I can see from other threads that others feel upset and are following it all closely. This thread is not to deny those feelings and for sure Queen E worked hard shaking hands for a long time - but to say, WTF, bring on the republic please.

[Discovereads]

@VivX
Its fundamental purpose is to avoid the erosion of the monarch's wealth and keep it intact (that's literally not the case for anyone else).

Yes it is. Everyone avoiding IHT via trusts is doing it to avoid the erosion of their wealth and to pass down as much as possible to their beneficiaries. You can even use a trust to avoid paying care home fees…so your wealth isn’t eaten up before you die and the council pays for your care.

Yes it’s a bit of faff, but it’s pretty cheap to hire a solicitor to do it for you, it’s not like Joe Bloggs is going to be reading legislation or poring over forms. The advantage that “Joe Bloggs” gets with a Trust is that that he can name multiple beneficiaries and they do not even have to be relatives! However the monarch IHT exemption only applies from one monarch to another monarch…so a monarch can only have 1 beneficiary exempt from IHT and it can’t be anyone you choose, it has to be the heir to your throne. Anyone else you leave assets to, IHT applies.

[OneFrenchEgg]

Pen is his nemesis.

And twice in two days, too ...

Can you imagine the cartoons in the media?

Feels like an insight into his character tbh. I know he's under stress and it should all be perfect but honestly have some grace.

[Discovereads]

@Getagrip123
Still a less selfish life than the Elon Musks and Jeff Bezos’ of the world. The royals are not saints, but neither are they as bad as the average rich toff who literally does nothing for the common people except fuck them over every chance they get.

[VivX]

@Discovereads "so a monarch can only have 1 beneficiary exempt from IHT and it can’t be anyone you choose, it has to be the heir to your throne."

Oh dear, now you seem to be implying that the monarchy are experiencing some sort of hardship because they're limited to only having 1 beneficiary exempt from IHT?

Why don't you get your solicitor friend to tell them that all they need to do is pop it in a trust and make sure they live for another 7 years.
"Same effect... Zero IHT due"
Problem solved.

[cakeorwine]

@Discovereads

@Getagrip123
Still a less selfish life than the Elon Musks and Jeff Bezos’ of the world. The royals are not saints, but neither are they as bad as the average rich toff who literally does nothing for the common people except fuck them over every chance they get.

Why do they do it?

Why do you think that they want this life?
Bezos and Musk chose their life.

I am curious as to why you think they do this and choose it for their children?

[Discovereads]

@VivX

@Discovereads "so a monarch can only have 1 beneficiary exempt from IHT and it can’t be anyone you choose, it has to be the heir to your throne."

Oh dear, now you seem to be implying that the monarchy are experiencing some sort of hardship because they're limited to only having 1 beneficiary exempt from IHT?

Why don't you get your solicitor friend to tell them that all they need to do is pop it in a trust and make sure they live for another 7 years.
"Same effect... Zero IHT due"
Problem solved.

It’s pros and cons isn’t it? Automatic exemption, but strictly limited beneficiary vs a bit of paperwork and forward planning, but unlimited beneficiaries.

Neither has a hardship.

[Discovereads]

@cakeorwine

Why do they do it?

Why do you think that they want this life?
Bezos and Musk chose their life.

I am curious as to why you think they do this and choose it for their children?

No idea. Would love to know.

[VivX]

"Ive seen much longer exposes of similar diva type requirements that Mariah Carey..."

I though the earlier comparison to the non-existent Duke of Buckingham was a little strange, but seeing attempts to compare Charles favourably to Mariah Carey is just bonkers.

That's a defence of the monarch's behaviour? That he's no worse than Mariah Carey?

[VivX]

@Discovereads

It’s pros and cons isn’t it? Automatic exemption, but strictly limited beneficiary vs a bit of paperwork and forward planning, but unlimited beneficiaries.

Neither has a hardship.

But it's not "pros and cons"... well, not according to your earlier stance.
You said "any of us could do the same by establishing a trust and then living for 7yrs".
I said it wasn't and now you're saying there are "pros and cons" (which logically, can only arise because there are differences)

(By the way, I mentioned the legislation, not particularly as a difference (although it, and the paperwork - obviously are differences) but to the point that tax legislation is written to maximise tax, whereas the MoU on royal taxation is written to be as vague and broad in order to preserve wealth.
It's a fundamental difference of intent.)

Anyway, ignoring everything else, including your "solicitor friend", surely common sense should tell you that the queen and her advisors did not spend time talking to the Treasury and the (then) Inland Revenue and Major negotiating something that she could have achieved by simply popping everything into a trust and living for 7 years - because "a bit of paperwork" would not be barrier if you're a monarch.

[Brefugee]

Ive seen much longer exposes of similar diva type requirements that Mariah Carey or Taylor Swift have.

those two - much as i don't really like their music - have earned their money. And as with tales of riders including "bowl of m&ms with the blue ones removed" some of the batshittery is to see if all parts of a contract are being read and honoured.

(charles is being wasteful with an inch of toothpaste. You only need the size of a pea)

I'll be Queen. I have no problem living like that.

[QuizzlyBear]

I absolutely agree - I find it horrifying in this day and age that we still revere one family of privileged individuals above all others, just because their ancestors owned more land / slaves / money than the rest of us.

Their continuing existence is the reason the class is still so prevalent in this country - the reason that those born into wealth and privilege are more likely to be seen as 'leaders' and the reason that over 70% if our current Cabinet are privately educated, compared with 7% of the population. Hardly representative of society!

We're a nation of cap-doffing serfs and until we get rid of that mindset we'll perpetuate inequality and the worst will inevitably rise to the top.

[Discovereads]

@QuizzlyBear
I disagree that the existence of the monarchy is why class still exists and why those born into wealth and privilege continue to dominate politics as leaders.

Look at all the nations with no monarchy, class still exists and those born into wealth and privilege still dominate politics as leaders.

The USA has never had a monarchy, yet every President and most of Congress is packed to the gills with people born into wealth and privilege. Socio-economic class is also very much a real thing there.

The same in France. In Russia. In China. In Brazil. In Greece….and so on…hundreds of countries.

All abolishing the monarchy would do is merge the royals with the aristocratic class right below them. The class pyramid and our social classes wouldn’t vanish. It would simply be slightly different in a way that doesn’t impact those of us on the lower levels at all. It also would not affect social mobility or the lack of opportunity for lower classes to attain political leadership.

[absolutelyanythingwilldo]

Has any country ever abolished their monarchy without a revolution/killing them all?

[Discovereads]

@absolutelyanythingwilldo

Has any country ever abolished their monarchy without a revolution/killing them all?

Quite a few have actually.

Germany sort of did, their last Kaiser abdicated after losing WWI in 1918. He went into exile in Holland and lived there peacefully until the Nazis murdered him when they invaded Holland.

Liliʻuokalani was last (and only) Queen of Hawaii and she wasn’t killed by the US when they conquered Hawaii and overthrew their monarchy.

Italy has as well, their monarchy was abolished in 1946? I think. Their last Queen died in 2001 (of old age). They still recognise aristocratic titles though so quite a few Princes/Princesses and Contes/Contessas running amok still. The actual heir to Italy’s monarchy just turned 18, Princess Vittoria.

Iceland did as well…although very similar to how the US did as they had been taken over by Denmark. So when the Nazis occupied Denmark, Iceland saw its chance and repudiated their King Kristján X (King of Denmark and Iceland) and founded their republic. Kristján X accepted it and sent congratulations to them after WWII.

India also abolished their Rajas and Maharajas without killing all of them/their families.

[SnoozyLucy7]

@Discovereads

@QuizzlyBear
I disagree that the existence of the monarchy is why class still exists and why those born into wealth and privilege continue to dominate politics as leaders.

Look at all the nations with no monarchy, class still exists and those born into wealth and privilege still dominate politics as leaders.

The USA has never had a monarchy, yet every President and most of Congress is packed to the gills with people born into wealth and privilege. Socio-economic class is also very much a real thing there.

The same in France. In Russia. In China. In Brazil. In Greece….and so on…hundreds of countries.

All abolishing the monarchy would do is merge the royals with the aristocratic class right below them. The class pyramid and our social classes wouldn’t vanish. It would simply be slightly different in a way that doesn’t impact those of us on the lower levels at all. It also would not affect social mobility or the lack of opportunity for lower classes to attain political leadership.

The 13 original colonies, of the United States,
were British colonies hence subjects of the British Monarch at the time. They only became independent of British rule on 4th July 1776. So they did have a royal head of state, for a bit of time at least.

[Livingtothefull]

Nobody is denying that other countries have a privileged class; what is different about our country is we have a system that codifies and underpins that privilege and by definition, deems inequality (and by implication, consequent poverty) inevitable.

Of course doing away with it will not itself solve the problems of inequality; but at least we won't have a country where inequality is baked into the system. We would then be working from the principle where all people are equal and nobody is deemed intrinsically superior by birth; that really matters.

[Livingtothefull]

And I agree with those who say Charles is not 'kind' to staff. The latest news is that large numbers of his staff have just been told they are facing redundancy: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/14/redundancies-king-charles-staff-clarence-house-mourning-period-heartless-union

And this at a time when so many people are facing hardship. Couldn't they even wait until the Queen was buried before showing their true colours again?

[midgetastic]

Those staff will have known that this would happen when the queen died

[MyLovelyPen]

@midgetastic so no need to consider timing then? Everyone else should be forced to mourn except for the royal palaces themselves who can just carry on fucking over the peasants at will 🙄.

Oh our wonderful country 😬.

[Brefugee]

of course they knew, those employees aren't daft. But it is crass beyond belief to send a letter like that. I've been made redundant before and it has never ever come as a letter first. That is downright rude. And really crass, since a lot of them are working overtime to make the transition smooth.

there is no earthly reason it couldn't have been done after the funeral. But since they are exempt from most employent law and pay shit wages, what did we expect?

[midgetastic]

If I was pretty certain my job was at risk I would prefer to know immediately

The uncertainty would be horrid

Having been in that situation before

[midgetastic]

And can I clarify - have they received redundancy notices or notification that a redundancy process is beginning ? I have seen both stated

[Livingtothefull]

Would they? According to other reports some staff members were 'visibly shaken' when the notices were handed to them while a Church service to the Queen was going on. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/king-charles-staff-redundancy-notice-jobs-b2166799.html#comments-area

The Queen's death cannot have come as that much of a shock to those managing the staff. Don't they plan ahead with their people resources for every contingency, like normal workplaces do? Eg what about William & Kate's brand new home (presumably they are still keeping it now); won't they need staff for that?

I have worked on redundancy at risk processes in the past and I know that properly, redundancy should be regarded as a very last resort by employers.

But then I recall reading that a few years ago the Queen successfully lobbied to ensure her staff were exempt from employee rights. Correct me if I am wrong on this (I may be) but if so, this could mean that these staff would not have a right to claim unfair dismissal if the redundancies turned out to be spurious.

[Brefugee]

They already know their jobs are in danger or they'll be asked to move elsewhere. A letter telling them this at this time is just insensitive. How about just telling them in person?

Am assuming it's just a heads up at this stage.

[Livingtothefull]

@midgetastic

And can I clarify - have they received redundancy notices or notification that a redundancy process is beginning ? I have seen both stated

We don't know for sure @midgetastic . Normally employees would be told they are 'at risk' of redundancy and that a redundancy consultation process is beginning - before any dismissal due to redundancy is confirmed. A meaningful consultation process is a legal requirement.

However in this case, as the RF may have ensured their staff are exempt from employment rights it is possible they have had dismissal notifications as their employees may feel it is safe for them to cut corners and avoid the bother of a consultation process. We already know that they didn't even have the courtesy to let the staff know in person what was happening.