It is ridiculous for a monarch to pay taxes in the lands in which they are liege.
By
nic
on February 11, 2008
In the UK we do this. It is a silly, vindictive, time consuming waste of money as far as I am concerned.
The Monarch, however constrained, rules over the country. It is silly to claim that we are all equal citizens under 1 government. We are not. She is the Queen.
I think she should get the income of her estates and so be it. If she didn't manage them properly she'd have to economize. If she managed them well she could splash out on a new tiara.
Neither should the state pay the Monarch for her endeavours. Full use of her lands and assets (except for selling them lock, stock) would be enough to keep her going.
Agreed
15
5
75.0% 25.0%
Embed Claim
Make a related claim
This claim was inspired by
Claims inspired by this one
Similar claims
- 31-7 The State Secrets privilege is unconstitutional.
- 52-3 The DMCA is unconstitutional.
- 9-3 God is mentioned in the Preamble of every State Constitution in the United States.
- 3-14 The phrase "secure the Blessings of Liberty" in the Preamble to the US Constitution presupposes something or someone bestowing the blessings.
- 2-10 Europe will never get the Constitution
Discussion (3)
What other way of holding a monarch is there?
Let's face it, monarchs are ridiculous. But if you're gonna have one you might as well accept the implications.
I don't think anyone's really put there backs into this problem since Edmund Burke.
God Save HRH!
Boo, hiss. Freedom for the common person and a few less fat bastages at the top eating all the pies.</vaguely-blackadder>