Rule Britannia! The Queen owns the seabed.

[grannieonabike]

Heard this on the news. She'll get all the profits from offshore wind farms, I believe. Made me wonder what else she owns.

March on the Palace anyone?

grasping bitch

So?

For example. If she donated the profits to one huge pension fund for us all, then some of the money would go to ... erm .. me.

They're coming to take me away. Sometime soon.

and she's entitled to:

1.FREE BUS TRAVEL ON MONDAY - FRIDAY 9.30AM - 11.00PM, WEEKENDS & PUBLIC HOLIDAYS

2.FREE TV LICENCE SAVING HRH £145.50 PER YEAR

3.FUEL ALLOWANCE TOTALLING £400 PER YEAR, NOT SURE IF THIS IS FOR BUCKINGHAM PALACE OR WINDSOR CASTLE

I

WONDER IF SHE'LL BANK HER OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROFITS INTO OFFSHORE BANK ACCOUNTS

You didn't hear 100% correctly. The monarch owns 146,000 hectares of agricultural land & forests plus the sea-bed around Britain to a 12 nautical mile limit. It's collectively the 'Crown Estates' and any profits generated after investments and costs are credited back to public funds.

She won't get 'all the profits' from any off-shore developments. As landowner the Crown would be entitled to rent from the company who built the wind-farms etc. and this would go into the Crown Estate revenue.

A proportion of which now goes, I believe, to the monarch, for the first time in 250 years. The revenue from the Crown Estate used to go to the government, and the government paid the Civil List. Now she gets a slice.

As a foreigner, I have to say I have been wondering why people haven't been standing outside Buckingham Palace with pitchforks and pikes.

One of her many Raphaels or Faberge eggs would restore child benefit to Britain in a stroke. Two, and just think, perhaps disabled children wouldn't have to go on ten-year waiting lists for motorised wheelchairs.

@ninedragons. Some Britons are republicans but the majority of us believe the the Royal Family represents cultural & historical continuity, provides a valuable function in diplomatic and trade relations and also brings in useful revenues for various industries, not least tourism. The monarchy was removed in the past but restored because we didn't think much to what replaced it :)

well said ninedragons, but for some reason people just don't get angry about the monarch and its obscene wealth, in fact we never hear the Queen having a normal interview that is how distanced we all are from her, she is shut off from reality imo.

The Royal Family has done more for Britain than any politician in the last 50 years except Thatcher. It's great having a Head of State who is entirely above politics - who can truly represent Britain's interest in the world.

A President would have all the same costs, and none of the glorious tradition and history.

The strength of the monarchy is that it is an a-political institution. It was separated from the functions of government hundreds of years ago and that's how we like it. Representating the nation rather than controlling it. A 'normal interview' in which we find out the Queen's opinions is therefore redundant.

'and that's how we like it.' Chil1234, is that the Royal we?

Are you saying you'd prefer it if we should restore full governing & legislative powers back to a hereditary monarchy such as they were pre Charles I?

Thanks for the info, Chi1234 and ninedragons. As far as the monarchy is concerned, we don't have to abolish them. Just cut their benefits. Redistribute (some) of their immense wealth.

Biscuit, anyone?

Cerealoffender. Lovely language to use about the Queen!

Long live the Queen That's how I like it and the majority as well!

Precisely our 'glorious tradition and history'.

'The Royal Family has done more for Britain than any politician in the last 50 years except Thatcher'

Name one thing, LongFingerNails, one thing they've done for us?

I know! Prince Charles stopped some rich prince making Chelsea Baracks into a horrible tower. Way to go!

I don't hate them, btw. I just think of them as irrelevant. And too rich. The Spanish royal family is better, imo, (costs less) though still not good.

monarchs are simply not above politics at all. And the claim thatcher did the country good is utterly delusional for the right wing bigots amongst us.

Monarch 'owning' the sea bed. Bit complex isn't it? Not to say Monty Pythonesque sort of risible-ness. If it was 1st April it would be understandable. But still, they shouldn't be around to have this debate about at all.

Just think, every time you buy a fish ...

I for one am glad HRH is there to stop some grasping ex Prime Minister weedling him/herself into the position of Presidential Head of State.

She also wields quiet power that keeps the constitutional show on the road. The recent resolution of the confusion about the handover of power in a hung Parliament is a prime example.

The fact that HRH briefly holds in trust the governance of the nation in that brief moment between Prime Ministers and yet willingly gives it away is quite something.

How many politicians would give up absolute unelected power willingly without it being wrung for their hands? For that reason I NEVER want a politician Head of State.

two things BB.

1. If they had asked me I would have held the governance of the nation for a few days whilst they sorted stuff out. Would have given it back. IF asked politely to.....no need for a monarch to do it.

1. Cost - just have one leech if we have to have one. Not the rest of the scroungers.

"how can anyone own a seabed?"

It's all to do with historical boundaries - goes back to Edward the Confessor, apparently. 12 nautical mile strip around the coast, say it 'belongs to the Crown' and that keeps out the rif-raff, invaders, that kind of thing. Doubt anyone thought at the time that one day they'd be planting wind turbines in the sea-bed....

Doing a bit more reading on the Crown Estates and they're not the private property of HMQ. Managed by an independent board, can't be sold..

Scary three word reason for retaining hereditary monarchy... 'President Tony Blair'. [hshock]

'Are you saying you'd prefer it if we should restore full governing & legislative powers back to a hereditary monarchy such as they were pre Charles I?'

erm..no. I'm saying that just because it didn't work out for Oliver Cromwell in the the C17th, the idea of a Republic is not redundant. But thanks for the History lesson anyway. :)