When it comes to the monarchy, taxpayers have a real bargain

Few appear to properly understand the funding of the monarchy.

The taxpayer is not involved. The Crown Estates were originally crown assets, rather than state assets, and formerly the personal property of the monarch.

They were surrendered on the understanding that parliament would refund a reasonable proportion of the revenue from these estates (which now allegedly totals 1.1 billion annually) for support of the royal family through the sovereign grant.

It seems to me that by enjoying the full benefit of the uncommitted balance, the taxpayers have a real bargain. Of course, one can question the justice of the historic processes through which the crown obtained these properties in the first place, but that is an entirely different argument.

Geoffrey Collier

Swanland

In recent years, the Republican party has used its megaphone to protect citizens’ right to bear arms. And we’ve heard them loud and clear: the government should not be able to take away our fundamental right to own and carry guns. Doing so would be a government overreach.

To me, this begs the obvious question: why are guns not allowed inside the RNC, nor its immediate vicinity?

I personally cannot fathom that this event, so full of the proudest gun owners across our country, would dare ask its attendees to place their guns aside… for security purposes, in particular.

The hypocrisy is astounding. Does the RNC forbid guns inside the arena in order to (gasp) keep people safe?

Or, perhaps more likely, the RNC has made this exception at this particular event to help protect the one and only Donald Trump? Apparently, attendees were perfectly willing to place their guns aside for this high-energy celebration of another pending Trump presidency.

The irony