The Monarchy in Canada | Queen Elizabeth 1926-2022

[thurmas]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64319323

King Charles to divert Crown Estate windfall to 'public good


King Charles has asked for a surge in profits from six new offshore wind farms on the Crown Estate, worth £1bn, to be used for the "wider public good", rather than the Royal Family.

The Royal Household's public funding is based on 25% of Crown Estate profits.

But King Charles wants to reduce this percentage so that more is kept by the Treasury to be used for public spending.

The King spoke of the pressures of the cost-of-living in his Christmas speech.

In his Christmas message, King Charles highlighted the pressures of the cost-of-living crisis - and he seems to be taking action to avoid what could have been an awkward surge in income for the royals.

The Crown Estate is an independently-run, commercial business, whose profits go to the Treasury - but those profits are used as the benchmark for the level of public funding for the Royal Family, known as the Sovereign Grant, which last year was worth £86.3m.

These profits are now expected to be significantly boosted by deals to develop six new offshore wind farms, collectively worth £1bn per year for at least three years in fees from firms buying the rights to build wind farms on Crown Estate offshore sites.

This would have produced a very significant increase in the amount going into the Sovereign Grant, which could have proved embarrassing against a backdrop of financial pressures on the public.

Buckingham Palace says in light of the "offshore energy windfall", the King wants to reduce the slice of profits used to calculate the grant.

At present, the Sovereign Grant is based on 25% of Crown Estate profits - a temporary increase on the usual 15% - with the extra funding used for repairs and renovations for Buckingham Palace.

The grant is used for paying for the costs of working royals, such as travel for official engagements, and for the upkeep of royal palaces.

A review of this percentage of Crown Estate profits going into royal funding is currently under way with the Treasury, with a decision expected in the next few months.

Sir Michael Stevens, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, has written to the prime minister and chancellor to propose an "appropriate reduction".

But anti-monarchy campaigners, Republic, have rejected the move as "cynical PR to pre-empt a government decision to reduce the percentage".

The group's chief executive Graham Smith said the King's statement "reflected an arrangement he had no power to change".

Three of the new offshore wind farm locations are off the North Wales, Cumbria and Lancashire coast, and three are in the North Sea off the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire coast. Once developed, the ambition is for them to generate enough electricity for seven million homes.

This will add to the existing 36 operational offshore wind farms on Crown Estate sites off the coasts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Dan Labbad, chief executive of the Crown Estate, hailed the benefits of this "next generation of projects".

"They demonstrate the far-reaching value that our world-class offshore wind sector can deliver for the nation - home-grown energy for all, jobs and investment for communities, revenue for the taxpayer, clean energy for the benefit of the environment, and a considerate, sustainable approach which respects our rich biodiversity," he said.

[q12]

Wow

2 in 3 Canadians would vote to eliminate the monarchy in Canada

abacus data

May 4, 2023

https://abacusdata.ca/monarchy-in-canada/

[Nouvellecosse]

^ Too bad it doesn't show a breakdown by age. I'd guess that the average remaining life span of that 36% is probably less than 36 years.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^ Too bad it doesn't show a breakdown by age. I'd guess that the average remaining life span of that 36% is probably less than 36 years.

https://abacusdata.ca/monarchy-in-canada/

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Loco101

https://abacusdata.ca/monarchy-in-canada/

Very interesting how monarchy support tends younger, and further west. Not what I would have expected at all.

[Architype]

^^ That's a little surprising, but it addresses those wanting to emphasize the idea that it's just old people who want to keep the monarchy. The youngest age group is more supportive than the older ones. Maybe older people are just tired of the controversy, and sensing how things have changed, have decided it isn't a worthwhile cause anymore. To further the cause of royal disengagement and hypocrisy, our CBC is busy investigating links between the monarchy and slavery.

For the first time, Buckingham Palace publicly expressed support for research into the Crown’s connection to the transatlantic slave trade, including how much the monarchy profited from it. King Charles has even given researchers access to archives to dig into the historic links.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2202551363604

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Very interesting how monarchy support tends younger, and further west. Not what I would have expected at all.

It does look surprising, but those are pretty small differences that are mostly well within the margin of error. I think it's more fair to say that there generally just isn't much variation between age groups, genders, or regions - with the obvious exception of Quebec.

[SpongeG]

who will be watching the coronation? London is getting ready. I still don't understand what a Queen Consort is, she makes an appearance in this video...

• Video Link

[Architype]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

who will be watching the coronation? London is getting ready. I still don't understand what a Queen Consort is, she makes an appearance in this video...

I plan to watch some of it. A Queen Consort is just not a hereditary title like a real Queen, it's more like Prince Phillip not automatically becoming a king. She will still be called Queen though, so it's a bit different, an inverse nod to the true patriarchal nature of the monarchy, that of automatically putting King before Queen. If Phillip had the title of King or King Consort, it would have appeared that he was above the Queen.

[madog222]

Queen Elizabeth was a Queen Regnant which is equivalent to King. A Queen Consort is the wife of a King.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Architype

^^ That's a little surprising, but it addresses those wanting to emphasize the idea that it's just old people who want to keep the monarchy. The youngest age group is more supportive than the older ones. Maybe older people are just tired of the controversy, and sensing how things have changed, have decided it isn't a worthwhile cause anymore. To further the cause of royal disengagement and hypocrisy, our CBC is busy investigating links between the monarchy and slavery.


https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2202551363604

Telling a pollster "yes" to getting rid of the monarchy is very easy to do. Now ask the person "What do we replace it with, and how do we ensure a solid democracy afterwards?" Are Canadians ready for the pain that this will certainly entail?


The Crown and Slavery. Why is this a surprise to anyone? Everybody around the world was involved in the slave trade in some aspect. There was the trans Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean, and the Black Sea slave trades. Many a fortune was established by slavery and this is not new.

But it is good the King is facing this topic head on. Will reparations be paid to residents of certain commonwealth countries? Who knows? And who will weep for the first residents of these areas who were wiped out by murder and disease.

In the US, how much of wealth of the American Aristocracy was accumulated by the slave trade? How many New England ship builders profited? The roots of American wealth run deep into some pretty dark territory both in slavery, stolen First Nations land, brutal work conditions in mining and industry, the list goes on.

Same could be said for every country in the world. Great wealth has been built on the bones of oppressed and abused people and it hasn't really stopped.

Another unpopular topic is that until the discovery of anti malaria (and other deadly to European tropical diseases) drugs European slavers were dependent upon coastal Africans to capture fellow Africans and prepare them for shipment to the Western Hemisphere. There is not many clean hands in the international slave trade.

[MonctonRad]

I will be watching, although I will not be setting my alarm to wake up early to get the earliest coverage.

As for the unpopularity of Charles, and the sudden desire of many Canadians to chuck the monarchy (pun intended), one has to remember that the monarchy refers to the institution rather than the current occupant of the throne. I personally don't mind Charles, but his rule will be forever tainted by the popularity of Diana, his infidelity and her sad death. I don't think this is fair, but there is nothing that can be done about this other than to soldier on. In the end, Charles will prevail.

The most stable form of governance worldwide tends to be a constitutional monarchy. This model reeks of stability and tradition, and of loyalty ands service. It is always a good thing to make sure the head of government is also not the head of state. This keeps the current elected dictator from getting too much of a swelled head. Canada could definitely do worse. Just look south of the border.

Long live the King!

[Acajack]

People will answer this to a poll but if we had a national debate and a build-up campaign and an actual vote the support for the monarchy would increase substantially (except in Quebec), like it did in Australia when they had a referendum on the question. Everyone there assumed that abolition would win.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

People will answer this to a poll but if we had a national debate and a build-up campaign and an actual vote the support for the monarchy would increase substantially (except in Quebec), like it did in Australia when they had a referendum on the question. Everyone there assumed that abolition would win.

From what I gather, what happened in Australia was a lot of republicans actually voted to keep the monarchy because they disagreed with the new system chosen.

Something similar would happen here. There's no such thing as simply "abolishing the monarchy". "Abolishing the monarchy" means "redesigning our form of government, and agreeing on it."

[1overcosc]

So the federal government is changing the King's title.

It's being altered from

Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

Charles Trois, par la grâce de Dieu Roi du Royaume-Uni, du Canada et de ses autres royaumes et territoires, Chef du Commonwealth, Défenseur de la Foi.

to this new version:

Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and his other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth

Charles Trois, par la grâce de Dieu, Roi du Canada et de ses autres royaumes et territoires, Chef du Commonwealth.

The reference to the UK as well as the "Defender of the Faith" part are removed.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The reference to the UK as well as the "Defender of the Faith" part are removed.

Sensible.

"Defender of the Faith" is difficult to justify in a pluralistic society with no official state religion

The deletion of the specific reference to the UK reinforces the concept that he is equally King of Canada as well as King of the UK.

I approve.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

From what I gather, what happened in Australia was a lot of republicans actually voted to keep the monarchy because they disagreed with the new system chosen.

Something similar would happen here. There's no such thing as simply "abolishing the monarchy". "Abolishing the monarchy" means "redesigning our form of government, and agreeing on it."

I don't think it has to be that complicated. Numerous countries have left the Commonwealth realm over the last century, surely there must be a couple of decent examples to follow?

If you limit the task to removing the Crown from the system of government then I think it's certainly possible if mostly everyone agrees. But if you open the doors to reconceive how the state is structured from the bottom up, then of course it gets complicated and prone to getting bogged down by competing demands from the various parties at the table.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't think it has to be that complicated. Numerous countries have left the Commonwealth realm over the last century, surely there must be a couple of decent examples to follow?

If you limit the task to removing the Crown from the system of government then I think it's certainly possible if mostly everyone agrees. But if you open the doors to reconceive how the state is structured from the bottom up, then of course it gets complicated and prone to getting bogged down by competing demands from the various parties at the table.

You can't do the former without also doing the latter.

Almost none of the countries that made the transition from Commonwealth realm to republic remained democracies. Ireland made the transition, but completely redid their constitution as a result.

Ireland actually did a two part process - first they got a new constitution in 1937 that nominally kept the monarch but disconnected all the systems of government from the crown (leaving it somewhat ambiguous whether or not the King was even still the King), and then formally became a republic in 1949.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

You can't do the former without also doing the latter.

Almost none of the countries that made the transition from Commonwealth realm to republic remained democracies. Ireland made the transition, but completely redid their constitution as a result.

Ireland actually did a two part process - first they got a new constitution in 1937 that nominally kept the monarch but disconnected all the systems of government from the crown (leaving it somewhat ambiguous whether or not the King was even still the King), and then formally became a republic in 1949.

Is the issue constitutional monarchy altogether? Or is it the shitshow in England that we have to accept right now as part of it?

We can fix the latter problem quite easily... the GG is now "the Crown". Boom, done.

[Acajack]

Perfect timing! Here is a very thoughtful article from former PQ leader Jean-François Lisée on how it could be done. Just published today.

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magaz...odbye-charles/

I think there are a few "assumptions" in there that might not pan out, but still interesting reading.