I assume this was meant to be a reply to my comment. I’m not sure what’s odd about the example, and it’s hardly strange to “invent” an analogy. A party has control of an asset via the position they hold, they sell the rights to use and profit from that asset to a second party in exchange for financial compensation. That’s the deal. The monarch doesn’t have the rights to the profits of the Estate because the Treasury has the rights to it under the existing legislation.
The Estate was established 16 years before the American revolution with the Civil List Act 1760. That the monarch used to fund wars is entirely irrelevant to who has the rights now.
The Estate is also explicitly not the monarch’s private property. It’s a perk of the most overpaid and intentionally nepotistic civil service position in the country. Far from petty, I’d say it’s only right to question that
I assume this was meant to be a reply to my comment. I’m not sure what’s odd about the example, and it’s hardly strange to “invent” an analogy. A party has control of an asset via the position they hold, they sell the rights to use and profit from that asset to a second party in exchange for financial compensation. That’s the deal. The monarch doesn’t have the rights to the profits of the Estate because the Treasury has the rights to it under the existing legislation.
The Estate was established 16 years before the American revolution with the Civil List Act 1760. That the monarch used to fund wars is entirely irrelevant to who has the rights now.
The Estate is also explicitly not the monarch’s private property. It’s a perk of the most overpaid and intentionally nepotistic civil service position in the country. Far from petty, I’d say it’s only right to question that