Where does the British crown own land outside of the UK?
Jersey?
That’s held by HM as Duke of Normandy, not as Queen of the UK. The Channel Islands are not part of the UK. No idea how much public land there is on the Islands.
I did not know that. The knowledge now leads me to question whether he’s really a liberal.
I will not vouch for the claims made in the book, summarized thusly. Some are dated and over generous in conflating the Crown and personal possession.
“Who Owns the World presents the results of the first-ever landownership survey of all 197 states and 66 territories of the world, and reveals facts both startling and eye-opening. You’ll learn that:
Only 15% of the world’s population lays claim to landownership, and that landownership in too few hands is probably the single greatest cause of poverty.
Queen Elizabeth II owns 1/6 of the entire land surface on earth (nearly 3 times the size of the U.S.). The Lichtenstein royal family is wealthier than the Grimaldis of Monaco.
80% of the American population is crammed in urban areas.
The least crowded state is Alaska, with 670 acres per person. The most crowded is New Jersey, with .7 acres per person. 60% of America’s population are property owners. That’s behind the UK (69% homeownership)…” (reviewed on Goodreads)
Until sometime around 1960, give or take, it was common for women to wear hats when they went out. The Queen has simply kept up the habit.
Queen Victoria maybe. Liz? Doubtful.
Indeed - my mother would occasionally quote, sarcastically, what had obviously been drummed into her in the 1920s - “No lady ever goes out without a hat and gloves”. And for special occasions, she usually did.
It makes sense the Palace would have a ATM. It still has to be linked to one of the Royal bank accounts.
These days a Royal credit card would be more appropriate than carrying wads of cash.
Here is the interesting thing. QE2 likes making subtle political comments. Like her open distaste for trump. But here is a great example-
Queen Elizabeth II isn’t afraid to show off her driving skills, either. In 1998, she surprised King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (then still a prince) by driving him around in her country seat of Balmoral.
Former British Ambassador Sherard Cowper-Coles recounted the meeting in the Sunday Times: “As instructed, the crown prince climbed into the front seat of the front Land Rover, with his interpreter in the seat behind. To his surprise, the Queen climbed into the driving seat, turned the ignition and drove off. Women are not — yet — allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, and Abdullah was not used to being driven by a woman, let alone a queen.”
Cowper-Coles continued: “His nervousness only increased as the Queen, an army driver in wartime, accelerated the Land Rover along the narrow Scottish estate roads, talking all the time. Through his interpreter, the crown prince implored the Queen to slow down and concentrate on the road ahead.”
That was a poke in the Princes eye, telling him- without saying a word- that QE2 disapproved of the idea that his female subjects were not allowed to drive, and the Saudi law was changed, June 2018, although it is still frowned upon and not that common. Although of course, women still do not have full legal rights yet.
The journey to nowhere: Little hope for Saudi women since driving ban was lifted - ABC News.
Yes, I thought it might be « Who Owns the World ». It’s crap, at least when dealing with the Queen.
Here’s the author’s blurb from Amazon:
As mentioned earlier, the Queen doesn’t own all the lands of the Commonwealth. It’s registered in her name, with the significant qualifier « in right of Canada », « in right of Ontario », etc. That means that it is public land, held by the government of Canada, Ontario, etc, on behalf of the people of that jurisdiction. It can only be sold or leased by that government, following the legal provisions in that jurisdiction that governs the sale or lease of the Crown land. The Queen is not consulted, and has no power to intervene in the transaction, nor does she get any revenue from it. Profits from the sale of Crown land go into the public treasury.
Nor does the Queen have the power to seize the author’s house. The British have spent several centuries building up a system of rule of law, including legal restrictions on the powers of the Crown. The Queen doesn’t have any personal power of expropriation or lease-cancellation in Britain.
Bullshit book.
It is. I am ambivalent about the monarchy but this author had a number of agenda. I would like to read an accurate book on this topic.
Here’s a quick intro:
never mind
Every few years, some publication will find that there’s some Manhattan condo owned by “Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada” and speculate about how maybe the Queen has a newly revealed pied-à-terre, or is getting into real estate speculation. But it’s always just the residence of Canada’s ambassador to the UN or consul general.
Maybe she just likes hats.
On the topic of royal powers, Queen Elizabeth is not Superman. She does not have any special powers as an individual.
What she has is institutional powers. It’s the power any authority figure has; when they tell people to do something, do those people do it?
Elizabeth has a great deal of political power in theory. But if she tried to actually wield that power, she would most likely find Parliament telling people not to do what the Queen said. And if it came down to a question of whether people would obey Parliament or the monarch, I feel they would choose Parliament. Charles I, James II, and Edward VIII provide examples of who really holds the power in Britain.
Her representative in Australia took the side of an opposition behaving badly and without precedent instead of the properly elected Prime Minister and sacked a government in 1975 1975 Australian constitutional crisis - Wikipedia
This started talk of becoming a republic but the same fuckers who orchestrated that gave us awful models to vote on that made QEII look preferable. Now there is greater support for it but the sentiment seems to be to wait her out and flick Chuck instead.
Just because they aren’t generally used doesn’t mean she doesn’t have scary powers to override the will of the people.
You’re in Oz, I’m not. But the article seems to indicate that the Queen, and her administrative support staff, were just as surprised as was Prime Minister Whitlam when he was fired.
To be sure, the Queen could have then countermanded her minion, the Governor-General, and reinstated the Australian PM. She chose not to. Perhaps a bad act of omission; I’m far too far away to know.
But there is a general provision of sound command that a bad decision stuck to is generally preferable to indecision. As well one needs to be mindful of supporting subordinates in the heat of battle. They can be sacked later por encourager les autres to exercise better judgment.
Oh really? Want to give us a cite for the 2nd one? 