Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

The queen has custody!!

62 replies

Slazengerbag · 10/05/2019 20:18

Bored shitless tonight and I was snooping around twitter and I came across the awful megxit tweets. The conspiracy theories are WOW 🤣

Anyway on one comment it said that the queen has custody of all royal children. I obviously thought it was bullshit but google has confirmed it. The Queen has full legal custody of any children born in to the royal family!

Am I the only person who didn’t know this?

OP posts:
OracleofShelf · 10/05/2019 20:27

Good Lord. Was all ready to come back with a link to Snopes but it seems it's true! Learn something every day!

ATowelAndAPotato · 10/05/2019 20:28

Yes I did. I think it was in the media when William and Kate had their first?

mumwon · 10/05/2019 20:37

(vision: Queen tells W &K M & H to bring the dgc round for asleep over & they cant say no! imagine the mumsnet thread!)

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

The royal family
Original poster
Slazengerbag · 10/05/2019 22:04

@mumwon that’s what I was thinking Grin

OP posts:
PickAChew · 10/05/2019 22:07

I bet she has them over for the afternoon, feeds them a ton of chocolate, gets them all wound up and then sends them back with the idea that Wills and Kate really ought to buy them a puppy.

KennDodd · 10/05/2019 22:11

I've also heard she owns all swans and wild animals (?)

Do you have a link about the children?

slipperywhensparticus · 10/05/2019 22:12

Certain swans yes and some wild animals on her estates I believe

CodenameVillanelle · 10/05/2019 22:14

Nah the children act makes that particular (18th century!) law obsolete.

Hecateh · 10/05/2019 22:16

And the state has final custody of all our children.

Obviously it doesn't and can't exercise this but where abuse or neglect is proved then the state can take any child they want

Same with the queen - agree with the Royals or not the queen is one savvy woman

Vanillamanilla1 · 10/05/2019 22:16

Only mute swans I think .. dunno what a mute swan is ( I know what a mute is , but how does one know the swan is a mute 🤔) .. I knew about the rest tho ...thought everyone knew this

TheInvestigator · 10/05/2019 22:18

Diana had considered taking Harry and William to Australia as she was going to go live there, but the queen having the legal right of controlling the education, marriages and upbringing was raised as a reason she couldn't. Not sure how true that is though; press isn't always reliable!

The queen wouldn't ever act on it for anyone outside of the direct line of heirs. So if you're 4th or 5th or further from the throne, she wouldn't stop them going to live somewhere!

EdithWeston · 10/05/2019 22:22

The monarch does have considerable power over the people at the top of the list of succession (I think it's top 6)

eg permission to marry, approval of proposed names for their DC

They also own just about all the land in the country (freehold is common ownership, not strict legal)

PenCreed · 10/05/2019 22:31

The freehold thing doesn't apply in Scotland - we hold land differently.

That custody thing is insane!

BecksDriver · 10/05/2019 22:33

I've heard she owns all the swans in England but I'm pretty sure she doesn't demand they are all Alba I at hers for supper by 9pm. Same with the g-grandkids I suppose

BecksDriver · 10/05/2019 22:33

*all back

Mayalready · 10/05/2019 22:35

Fucks up the newspaper article that suggests MM's df is going to court to apply for access to his dgs!!
HRH on the stand defending 'her' dc would be a sight!!

ManeChanged · 10/05/2019 22:39

It’s one of many laws that nominally remain on the statue book but in reality mean nothing and are good only for misleading newspaper articles.

The Queen is no more likely to exercise her custody rights that you are likely to be imprisoned for being drunk in a pub, or than an MP is likely to be arrested for wearing armour. Both those laws remain on the statute book too.

mathanxiety · 10/05/2019 22:39

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mute_swan

Today, the British Monarch retains the right to ownership of all unmarked mute swans in open water, but Queen Elizabeth II only exercises her ownership on certain stretches of the Thames and its surrounding tributaries. This ownership is shared with the Vintners' and Dyers' Companies, who were granted rights of ownership by the Crown in the 15th century.[53]

The mute swans in the moat at the Bishops Palace at Wells Cathedral in Wells, England have for centuries been trained to ring bells via strings attached to them to beg for food. Two swans are still able to ring for lunch

The mind boggles.

CodenameVillanelle · 10/05/2019 22:41

Diana had considered taking Harry and William to Australia as she was going to go live there, but the queen having the legal right of controlling the education, marriages and upbringing was raised as a reason she couldn't

I have no idea if Diana was planning to move to Australia but there would have been no need for the queen to use this power. The regular family courts would have been sufficient. I highly doubt that Diana would have seriously thought she could move the princes of the realm to Australia though!

EdithWeston · 10/05/2019 22:42

sorry - badly put

The monarch is (strictly speaking) ultimate owner of all land in all parts of UK (except one cemetary)

But that doesn't affect common ownership, or transfer of title (in whichever home nation)

AnyoneButAnton · 10/05/2019 22:42

There was an entertaining conspiracy

ModreB · 10/05/2019 22:44

If it's true that the State has legal custordy over all children, then it is right, as the Queen IS the State, even though she gives over governance to the Government and Parliament.

AnyoneButAnton · 10/05/2019 22:44

Oops
..an entertaining conspiracy theory that Andrew was secretly hankering to remarry Fergie and counting the days until the two new babies were born so he’d finally be far enough down the line of succession that he no longer needed HMQ’s permission to wed.

Hasn’t actually happened though.

TheInvestigator · 10/05/2019 22:44

CodenameVillanelle, no idea either but Dianna and Charles slogging it out in family court wouldn't have been an ideal thing to have happen. If the Queen had the power to say "I rule all so nope" then I'm sure she would have!

lyralalala · 10/05/2019 22:49

..an entertaining conspiracy theory that Andrew was secretly hankering to remarry Fergie and counting the days until the two new babies were born so he’d finally be far enough down the line of succession that he no longer needed HMQ’s permission to wed.

He's over 25 so he can marry without permission one year after permission was declined.

He just can't marry without permission without keeping his titles and place in the royal family... If he wanted to be plain old Mr Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor who married and went off to live his own life there's nothing stopping him.

A bit like Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend. She didn't have the Queen's permission, but she could have married him, but she'd have become Mrs Townsend, lost her civil list income and not been titled anymore. So she decied that 'duty' was more important.