What I'm curious about: what is the actual power of the royal house in the first place?
I know she was old, but I've never even heard a peep from Elizabeth on covid or the whole brexit saga (i might be missing a very neutral statement).
I'm not from the UK, but if it's anything like Belgium, it's just a ceremonial rule. Perhaps politically a catalysator, but not a force at all.
But again: I'm not from the uk so i don't know.
For the king and his role, what benefit would be to the country? The country would simply lose income.If it became a Republic, a massive improvement.
Like I said above, the government actually benefits monetarily from the crown. The crown's lands profit directly to the State, £160M a year if the value still maintains:I doubt anything changes since the royal family is just a vestigial institution at this point. Does the UK need to keep handing them taxpayer money for nothing? No. Do its citizens seem perfectly content with continuing to doing so? Yes.
Like I said above, the government actually benefits monetarily from the crown. The crown's lands profit directly to the State, £160M a year if the value still maintains:
For the king and his role, what benefit would be to the country? The country would simply lose income
not argue with these numbers, but I will say that the queen dying has shown a lot of the land "owned" by the crown would rather find new ownership, as it was improperly seized via colonialism and imperialism to begin with.
Crown land outside the UK (for the most part that means Canada and Australia) is more a synonym for government land anyway (think federal land in the US, https://i1.wp.com/sitn.hms.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Fig1.png for those not familiar, but more readily given up in some cases).I'll not argue with these numbers, but I will say that the queen dying has shown a lot of the land "owned" by the crown would rather find new ownership, as it was improperly seized via colonialism and imperialism to begin with. For that matter, calls for reparations are also picking up a lot of steam.
With Brexit the UK declared they'd rather withdraw into their own little bubble, but that being the case, logic dictates lands outside of that bubble should no longer be accessible to them as a playground, royalty or no.
What of the Caribbean?Crown land outside the UK (for the most part that means Canada and Australia) is more a synonym for government land anyway (think federal land in the US, https://i1.wp.com/sitn.hms.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Fig1.png for those not familiar, but more readily given up in some cases).
Crown owned land within the UK would be a whole other kettle of fish, and also involve a lot of the upper classes as it would make for the better part of a millennium of history to unpack as a lot will still have claims going back to 1066 and aftermath thereof, to say nothing of the general notions of adverse possession that is fairly key in historical common law.
Brexit as far as bubble could be argued, however just as many would say it is more of a rebuke of the EU rather than an isolationist streak or removal from the commonwealth as a concept. Now I don't particularly rate the chances of CANZUK (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK) actually amounting to more than a simplification of tourist, student and 20 something working holiday visas and possibly some military intelligence sharing (which they largely already do, training standards and protocols also tend to match).
That happens every 5 weeks or so for the last however many years now. Some did, some didn't, some just use it to agitate for something else.What of the Caribbean?
Brexit as far as bubble could be argued, however just as many would say it is more of a rebuke of the EU rather than an isolationist streak or removal from the commonwealth as a concept