never mind. But @Babale has a better fresher cite.
When I visited Windsor Castle or Tower of London is the $75 I paid counted as part of this $2B?
Yes, but that’s only fair - when I go to Disneyland to visit Space Mountain that’s counted in Mickey’s 2.6 billion (well, I go to California, not Paris, but still!)
I’d go to Windsor Castle and the Tower if the British Royal Family was as much a relic as the French Royal Family.
I’ve shelled out for Versailles as well. It didn’t bother me that Louis XXXII was not on the throne somewhere.
I agree that people would still want to see the changing of the guard and take the tower tour regardless of whether there is an active monarch. I wonder how it is calculated.
And no one pretends that Charles was hand-picked by God. He holds his position by virtue of laws passed by Parliament.
Oooh. That explains why the Parliament predates the Monarchy and also why Rishi Sunak coronated Charles.
You seem to be forgetting what Parliament did to the other Kings Charles.
January 1649: Charles I executed for high treason after a conviction before a High Court established by Parliament.
May 1649: Parliament passes An Act Declaring and Constituting the People of England to be a Commonwealth and Free-State, abolishing the monarchy.
May 2, 1660: Parliament passes a resolution that “government ought to be by King, Lords and Commons” and invited Charles Stuart to return to England as Charles II.
February 6, 1689: Parliament declares that James II has abdicated and the throne is vacant; Parliament offers the throne jointly William of Orange and Princess Mary, on condition that they accept the terms set out in the resolution; they do and Parliament proclaims them to be William III and Mary II. They then give royal assent to the terms, which become the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights changes the line of succession, excludes James II and his descendants, and declares that in the absence of William and Mary having issue, the Crown will pass to Mary’s sister, Princess Anne, and her issue.
1701: After Anne’s sole surviving son dies, leaving her without an heir, Parliament passes the Act of Settlement, which states that upon Anne’s death without issue, she will be succeeded by her distant cousin, Sophia of Hanover, and Sophia’s issue. The choice of Sophia is because she is Protestant. The Act of Settlement excludes a large number of Catholic claimants who are closer to the throne according to the strict line of male-preference primogeniture.
March 8, 1702: on William III’s death (Mary II had died earlier), Anne becomes Queen of England by virtue of the Bill of Rights passed by Parliament.
August 1, 1714: Anne dies without issue. Sophia of Hanover had died shortly before, so Sophia’s son George becomes George I of Great Britain, under the authority of the Act of Settlement.
Time passes.
January 20, 1936: Edward VIII, the senior surviving heir of Sophia of Hanover, becomes King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions overseas upon the death of his father, George V, pursuant to the Act of Settlement, 1701.
December 11, 1936: Edward signs an Instrument of Abdication, which takes effect on the enactment by Parliament of His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act, which excludes any issue which Edward may have from the succession. The Crown passes to his brother, who becomes George VI, pursuant to the Act of Settlement 1701 and His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936.
February 6, 1952: George VI dies and his daughter Elizabeth becomes Queen, pursuant to the Act of Settlement 1701 as the senior surviving heir of Sophia of Hanover, as modified by His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936.
September 8, 2022: Elizabeth II dies and her son becomes Charles III, pursuant to the Act of Settlement 1701, as the senior surviving heir of Sophia of Hanover.
At some point in the future, an older daughter will ascend to the throne instead of a younger son, according to the new rule of strict gender-neutral primogeniture enacted by Parliament in the Succession to the Crown Act, 2013.
In short, every king and queen of England / Great Britain / United Kingdom since 1660 has become monarch by virtue of resolutions and laws passed by Parliament.
He has now trooped his first colours.
(It’s a tough job, but someone has to do it.)
His first as King. He stood in for his mama last year.
He just trooped the one colour, pjd. He’ll troop another one next year, God willing.
ONE ?!
Lazy git.
Was reminded the other day of this story: Charles, or at least his aides, are under criminal investigation for selling honours to a Saudi billionaire.
The original story involved a literal suitcase full of cash.
The Met investigation is proceeding very, very, very slowly.
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1621105980946911233?t=32r_SsuCzkFvfwJJT663hQ&s=19
Original story
What’s the status of sovereign immunity in Great Britian?
The monarch is not amenable to the courts.
But his aides, in principal, are. There could be a fascinating discussion on the extent to which the aides could claim to be protected by their boss’s immunity if and to the extent that they were assisting him in the performance of his monarchical functions. But in this case the events complained of occurred when Charles was but a humble Prince of Wales, so I don’t think there would be much mileage in that argument. I’m not aware if the aides concerned are still in the monarchical employ.
I don’t know. When I visited, there was a line for the restroom.
Versailles? Yeh, visited that too, and immediately thought it was the perfect explanation for the French Revolution.
/hijack
Delightfully scathing:
Meanwhile, north of Hadrian’s Wall:
More on the new Elizabeth Sword: