Is the use of cash diminishing as fast in Canada as in the UK?
I don’t know. I typically don’t use cash nowadays, except to place a bet at the racetrack, where cash is necessary. Most everything else is done by debit card in my case; but me being me, I don’t like using that for small things, like a cup of coffee. So a few coins in my pocket is helpful for a loaf of bread or a can of Coke at the corner store.
I have seen people paying for their coffee, bread, and Coke with cards though, so I guess I’m a holdout.
But the UK Royal Mint was able to publish the new effigy for its coins just three weeks after his accession. Difficult to believe that they didn’t have that design prepared in advance. (Not that I’ve seen any yet, because coins are now something I so rarely handle.)
Some years are notoriously difficult for collectors to find. In 1933 there were scarcely any pennies struck at all. There have been some years where they did not strike coins at all. History of the British penny (1901–1970) - Wikipedia No pennies were struck for QE2 until 1953. No £.s.d. coins were dated later than 1967, until the decimal coinage came in 1971 (the decimal shilling and two-shilling equivalents started circulating long before that).
Use of cash is, of course declining sharply and some places refuse to take cash at all, now, including restaurants.
Many small and large concert venues have gone cash free. You must have a card or smartphone to get food, drinks and merchandise.
This is really interesting—I hadn’t known that. Thank you.
Not a bad-looking coin, although it seems odd to me that it shows his collar, tie and the top of his suitcoat. Aren’t the images of British, er, Canadian monarchs on coins usually just of the upper neck and the head - that is, a bust?
Looking at my pocket change right now … All the coins are Queen Elizabeth, of course, but different years have different profiles. In all of them, though, she’s got some sort of clothing with a neckline, and in more recent updates, it looks like she’s got a necklace too.
It’s been years since I’ve seen a George VI coin, and I can’t remember whether he was shown as a bust, so I can’t comment on that. But given that Elizabeth always had some sort of attire, it doesn’t seem unusual that Charles would have a coat, tie, and collar.
Edward VIII almost had some coins circulated but most were melted down. A few samples exist though and are very valuable.
Slight hijack: I worked with two nephews of Patricio Aylwin who was the president of Chile in the early 90s. His face was on one of their large denomination currency. One of them had one of those bills with his uncle’s signature on it.
What looks more odd to me is that it makes him look like he’s uncomfortably twisting his neck far to the right. His lapels/collar/tie look sort of 2/3 frontal but his head is full profile.
But the UK still does.
If Charles didn’t look at least slightly uncomfortable, how would you know it was him?
Nicely said!
Maybe it’s a guilty conscience?
(It is not.)
A mixture of feudal law and a consitutional weakness when it comes to differentiating between the person and state seems to have led to some rather unseemly financial practices on behalf of our monarch.
The Duchy of Lancaster, a controversial land and property estate that generates huge profits for King Charles III, has collected tens of millions of pounds in recent years under an antiquated system that dates back to feudal times.
Financial assets known as bona vacantia, owned by people who died without a will or known next of kin, are collected by the duchy. Over the last 10 years, it has collected more than £60m in the funds. It has long claimed that, after deducting costs, bona vacantia revenues are donated to charities.
However, only a small percentage of these revenues is being given to charity. Internal duchy documents seen by the Guardian reveal how funds are secretly being used to finance the renovation of properties that are owned by the king and rented out for profit.
Hardly unseemly. In America, if you die without heirs, your property is escheated to the state.
I assume the same thing happens all over the UK, and in fact it does- it goes to the Treasury, which then spends are is needed.
Didn’t read the article, huh?
Yep. You seem to think this is a disgrace. It isnt.
Still not read it then?
This assumption is incorrect.
The point of the article, and Stanislaus’s concern, is that bona vacantia in the Duchy do not revert to the Treasury. They revert to the monarch personally.
Outside of the Duchy, bona vacantia do revert to the Treasury, to be spent for public purposes.
I didn’t even have to read the whole article to understand this. The summary in Stanislaus’ post made it very clear.