Don't know much about it, but isn't part of the benefits of them that they own a f***-tonne of land which is basically given to the public to use? Removing them as the Royal Family would cost the public loads of land. No idea where I heard/read this, but I remember it from somewhere. 
Quite possibly made it up.
They only have that land because they are the monarchy. It should rightfully be returned to the people. As if we'd hand it all over to what would, in the event, be a private family of work shy toffs.
Not really how human-rights work though, just confiscating land from what would be, in the event, British citizens.
And fwiw, I assume the reason they have the land in the first place is because their ancestors conquered it, same as just about any owned land ever. Same reason the American government owns most of North America etc. In an ideal world that land should really be returned to the Native Americans who originated there, but it won't be. Extreme example but the same concept.
Uh not really, we could do what we like. It's an absurd argument. The Queen owns that land now but is not allowed to personally benefit from it. Oh noes, her human rights have been infringed, but that's impossible!!
Similar situation - the armed forces pledge allegiance to the monarch, the queen is their commander in chief, they are sub-ordinate to her - oh s***, a private citizen is going to have a private army of 200,000 people. Um no, we'd just inherit the armed forces as well.
Hardly an absurd argument to suggest that confiscating private land without just cause is against human rights laws. We can't just "do what we like".
are you for real? The Queen and all her trappings only come with the consent of parliament and the people. throughout history there have been numerous examples of stripping back regal rights and privileges, even removing them altogether and confiscating their land. As it is the queen at this very moment is not allowed to benefit from the Crown Estate - but, but, how is that possible!? It's an infringement upon someone's use of their own land, surely? No, it's an agreement that's been made. In the unlikely event of a republic, the queen would really be no in position to bargain, unless you of course also believe she'd be keeping the armed forces as well (which surely you do?).
Anyway, from wikipedia - "Although still belonging to the monarch and inherent with the accession of the throne, it is no longer the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him/her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally".
It's pretty clear that this is not an ordinary 'private property' situation.
Yes, I am for real, and trying to have a polite discussion.
I'd like to see some evidence for what you say, i.e. that the land they have is only their's through consent of the people. According to the video I posted earlier they do own the crown-lands and choose not to benefit from them, by voluntarily giving up the revenue. In other words, it's something that in the case of deposition could be reneged on.
Were we to remove the monarchy, they would revert to being private British citizens, so I'm not sure the part you quoted from wikipedia would still be relevant.
And no, of course I don't think they'd keep the army. For one thing, the army pledge allegiance to the Queen, the institution, rather than Elizabeth the person. Once the monarchy was gone I assume the allegiance pledged would be invalid.
Poll
