[B0ycey]

Yet you support inherited wealth, which amounts to the same thing.

Have you got a quote for that (false) assumption on me.

[wat0n]

Yet you support inherited wealth, which amounts to the same thing. I just can't comprehend the reasoning of people who support the idea that wealth can be passed on from one generation to the next, yet decry the idea that a title can be passed on from one generation to the next. Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see any substantive difference.

Arguably the difference is that titles have a special protection from the State, one that even wealth does not get. The reasoning for allowing inheritance of wealth is also stronger than for supporting a monarchy, although it should also be said that a relatively well functioning constitutional monarchy is better than a badly governed republic.

[Potemkin]

Arguably the difference is that titles have a special protection from the State, one that even wealth does not get. The reasoning for allowing inheritance of wealth is also stronger than for supporting a monarchy

In what way is it stronger? After all, a title might be merely an empty formality, such as an OBE, which carries no associated power or authority with it; yet money can be used to exert political influence. Why ban the former, yet allow the latter?

although it should also be said that a relatively well functioning constitutional monarchy is better than a badly governed republic.

Only in the sense that a well-governed society is better than a badly-governed society. But to say that is not to say much which is meaningful. The real question is, would a well-governed republic be better than a well-governed monarchy?

[wat0n]

In what way is it stronger? After all, a title might be merely an empty formality, such as an OBE, which carries no associated power or authority with it; yet money can be used to exert political influence. Why ban the former, yet allow the latter?

The process of accumulating enough wealth to even be able to inherit it, including the investment and subsequent economic activity it generates provides a justification, doesn't it?

Only in the sense that a well-governed society is better than a badly-governed society. But to say that is not to say much which is meaningful. The real question is, would a well-governed republic be better than a well-governed monarchy?

Yes, it would. But can the UK jump from a well-governed constitutional monarchy to a well-governed republic? I prefer the well-governed republic but I understand the appeal of keeping a system that has worked for centuries at this stage.

[Rugoz]

How is the UK a monarchy? The royal family is tax-funded entertainment for the masses, nothing else.

[snapdragon]

These rules?

The titles of prince and princess are restricted to the children of the sovereign, the children of the sovereign’s sons, and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

Not quite. Where did you dig that up from?

It’s restricted to the children and grandchildren of the sovereign. Nothing about eldest son.

It's odd then that Charlotte and Louis are HRHs. And Princess Anne's children were offered titles.

Not odd at all. Charlotte and Louis’s father is directly in line to the throne.

Princess Anne’s children are grandchildren of the queen; same as william and Harry, Eugenie and Beatrice.
Louise and James.

Eugenie’s son is not a prince and none of Anne’s granddaughters are princesses

[Heisenberg]

How is the UK a monarchy? The royal family is tax-funded entertainment for the masses, nothing else.

The UK hasn't really been a monarchy in the true sense since the English Civil War, when real power switched from the old feudal aristocracy to the rising merchant class. This was demonstrated very clearly in the "Glorious Revolution" in 1688, when James II tried to reassert the monarchy's old position and was cast aside without much trouble, leading to the present constitutional monarchy.

[snapdragon]

Have you got a quote for that (false) assumption on me.

Oh, right. So you don’t believe my parents should have had the right to leave me and my brothers their savings?

Just to clarify.

[Potemkin]

The process of accumulating enough wealth to even be able to inherit it, including the investment and subsequent economic activity it generates provides a justification, doesn't it?

Does it? The person who eventually inherits the money will have (almost always) done little or nothing to create the money. How is it easier to justify than inheriting a title?

[B0ycey]

Oh, right. So you don’t believe my parents should have had the right to leave me and my brothers their savings?

I don't believe in private property as it is a human construct - something I have written on PoFo before now and as such proves that Pote doesn't pay attention to anything I have written. The state should provide you with all your needs that you shouldn't need to rely on inheritance. However that is perhaps an unrealistic dream so my opinion is that whilst we have private property, your parents should choose to do what they like with their belongings if that helps until we can come up with something better.

[ingliz]

Nothing about eldest son.

George V's rules.

The Letters Patent read: '...the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of dukes of these our realms.'

Princess Anne is female.

Charlotte and Louis are not the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

[snapdragon]

I don't believe in private property as it is a human construct - something I have written on PoFo before now and as such proves that Pote doesn't pay attention to anything I have written. The state should provide you with all your needs that you shouldn't need to rely on inheritance. However that is perhaps an unrealistic dream so my opinion is that whilst we have private property, your parents should choose to do what they like with their belongings if that helps until we can come up with something better.

No private property at all? So my new shoes ought to belong to the state?

I think you’re right, Boycey. It’s a very unrealistic dream.

[B0ycey]

No private property at all? So my new shoes ought to belong to the state?

I think you’re right, Boycey. It’s a very unrealistic dream.

Your shoes are personal property. I am a Social Democrat not Communist in any case but there is a lot to learn from Marx. The things you would inherit like you home you should be provided and your shoes you should work for. Housing should be social and free.

[snapdragon]

George V's rules.

The Letters Patent read: '...the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of dukes of these our realms.'

Princess Anne is female.

Charlotte and Louis are not the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

you need to keep up.

The eldest son business was done away with years ago and the queen changed the rule to include all children of the eldest child of the prince of Wales before william had any children, in the interests of equality.

William is in direct line to the throne and Anne isn’t.

Her being female is neither here nor there.

In theory, Archie could have been made up to prince when everyone moves up one when Charles becomes king, but he won’t be , because Charles intends to streamline the monarchy.

Your information is out of date.

[wat0n]

Does it? The person who eventually inherits the money will have (almost always) done little or nothing to create the money. How is it easier to justify than inheriting a title?

The justification arises from the guy who generated the wealth in the first place, there was a social good in doing so.

Having said that, this of course can only go so far. But since being wealthy is not literally protected by law, if the descendants are incompetent enough they will squander the wealth sooner or later...

[snapdragon]

Your shoes are personal property. I am a Social Democrat not Communist in any case but there is a lot to learn from Marx. The things you would inherit like you home you should be provided and your shoes you should work for. Housing should be social and free.

So, you do believe in property? Sorry, but I’m a bit confused .

Who decides who gets the leafy villas in Belsize Park, for example?

[Rugoz]

Does it? The person who eventually inherits the money will have (almost always) done little or nothing to create the money. How is it easier to justify than inheriting a title?

It encourages parents to make money respectively not to spend everything before their demise.

In find a progressive wealth tax more desirable/practical than an inheritance tax.

[B0ycey]

So, you do believe in property?

Property exists because things exist. I don't believe in Private property. The thing you will inherit because wealth is created by land exploitation. That is different from your shoes. How much do you know about Marx before we continue this on semantics?

[Heisenberg]

So, you do believe in property?

Personal property = consumer goods, possessions, items for personal use.
Private property = private ownership of the means of production, capital goods and/or natural resources.

Socialists have no problem with the former; they oppose the latter.

[snapdragon]

My house is my personal property.