Jump to content

The monarchy and the secrecy of its wealth and influence


Recommended Posts

Had a bit of a debate at a BBQ this evening about the role of the monarchy in modern times, and whether royals have any real justification to exist as sovereign entities in a supposedly democratic system.

 

Whether the monarchy has any political clout today or not is debatable, and in my opinion not the real issue. I'm sure we can all agree that wealth is the true power in this world. On that note, the secrecy of the monarchy's holdings should perhaps be scrutinised more closely by its subjects:

 

The Guardian newspaper reported in May 2002:

 

"the reason for the wild variations in valuations of [the queen's] private wealth can be pinned on the secrecy over her portfolio of share investments. This is because her subjects have no way of knowing through a public register of interests where she, as their head of state, chooses to invest her money.

 

Unlike the members of the Commons and now the Lords, the Queen does not have to annually declare her interests and as a result her subjects cannot question her or know about potential conflicts of interests... In fact, the Queen even has an extra mechanism to ensure that her investments remain secret - a nominee company called the Bank of England Nominees. It has been available for decades to all the world's current heads of state to allow them anonymity when buying shares. Therefore, when a company publishes a share register and the Bank of England Nominees is listed, it is not possible to gauge whether the Queen, President Bush or even Saddam Hussein is the true shareholder."

 

So, I repeat, the old arguments about whether the monarchy has anything more than ceremonial status is irrelevant, since money does the talking in this world, and those who are privileged enough to hide behind their holding accounts when no other company has such privilege (thanks to Companies House)... kind of puts things into perspective does it not? Kind of suggest that stench of hierarchical, feudal privilege is still in the air, does it not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The British royal family are a hideous reminder of our uncivilised past and should be abolished.

 

If, as some people suggest, they really do earn their keep by bringing tourists into the UK, then they should be funded by the British tourist industry, and not rely on state-handouts like a bunch of Chavs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had a bit of a debate at a BBQ this evening about the role of the monarchy in modern times, and whether royals have any real justification to exist as sovereign entities in a supposedly democratic system.

 

Whether the monarchy has any political clout today or not is debatable, and in my opinion not the real issue. I'm sure we can all agree that wealth is the true power in this world. On that note, the secrecy of the monarchy's holdings should perhaps be scrutinised more closely by its subjects:

 

The Guardian newspaper reported in May 2002:

 

"the reason for the wild variations in valuations of [the queen's] private wealth can be pinned on the secrecy over her portfolio of share investments. This is because her subjects have no way of knowing through a public register of interests where she, as their head of state, chooses to invest her money.

 

Unlike the members of the Commons and now the Lords, the Queen does not have to annually declare her interests and as a result her subjects cannot question her or know about potential conflicts of interests... In fact, the Queen even has an extra mechanism to ensure that her investments remain secret - a nominee company called the Bank of England Nominees. It has been available for decades to all the world's current heads of state to allow them anonymity when buying shares. Therefore, when a company publishes a share register and the Bank of England Nominees is listed, it is not possible to gauge whether the Queen, President Bush or even Saddam Hussein is the true shareholder."

 

So, I repeat, the old arguments about whether the monarchy has anything more than ceremonial status is irrelevant, since money does the talking in this world, and those who are privileged enough to hide behind their holding accounts when no other company has such privilege (thanks to Companies House)... kind of puts things into perspective does it not? Kind of suggest that stench of hierarchical, feudal privilege is still in the air, does it not?

 

Thats interesting about B of E Nominees how does this compare with the fuss Gordon and co are making about secret swiss bank accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how there could be a conflict of interest, since the queen has no influence on political decision-making nor any authority over anybody.

 

The Monarchy serves only to deny absolute power from anyone else. They retain their power only on condition that they never use it - the neatest system I ever came across to prevent abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They only cost about us abou 50p each though, we should respect our traditions.
If it was tradition for everyone in the country to give me 50p it'd be great but it wouldn't be a good reason to do it! I need a better reason than tradition, I want something for my money, and I want to be able to be a part of choosing who it goes to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how there could be a conflict of interest, since the queen has no influence on political decision-making nor any authority over anybody.

 

The Monarchy serves only to deny absolute power from anyone else. They retain their power only on condition that they never use it - the neatest system I ever came across to prevent abuse.

 

I never looked at it that way, it's interesting but I'm not sure I buy it though. Practically, how would they be able to deny anyone else absolute power?

 

And it doesn't answer why the position shouldn't be voted for. Hell we might as well have televised nationwide competition to find the best candidate for the job of sitting around watching tv, throwing garden parties and making a speech once a year that's written for you, you'd get loads of applicants, and the auditions would be hilarious:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never looked at it that way, it's interesting but I'm not sure I buy it though. Practically, how would they be able to deny anyone else absolute power?

 

And it doesn't answer why the position shouldn't be voted for. Hell we might as well have televised nationwide competition to find the best candidate for the job of sitting around watching tv, throwing garden parties and making a speech once a year that's written for you, you'd get loads of applicants, and the auditions would be hilarious:thumbsup:

now theres an idea !! Britains got Power... :thumbsup::hihi::hihi:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.