AIBU to loathe the Royal Family

[InWinoVeritas]

The way the media is so gushing about everything Wills, Kate and Harry do, just been watching the evening news, there is a story about Wills and Kate doing a radio broadcast, makes me want to vomit..
And the issues about mental health - really? Do we need Royal 'endorsement' just to get more funding?

Probably the Royal Family would retain their privately held assets only and not the Crown Estate in the event the Monarchy is abolished, but I'm not sure the legal position is completely clear.

If the queen owned the full rights to the crown estates why is then that the government have "allowed" her 15% of the profits from them. She'd be taking a hell of a lot more if it was hers to do so knowing how greedy she is The crown estates belong to the nation and would automatically revert back to it if there was no monarchy.

Not sure where you got that.

This is what the Crown Estate website says.

"The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch."

"The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation's finances."

The royal family certainly don't support themselves, the crown estates aren't owned by them to do what they want with that's for sure. Apart from anything else there is also the issue of that they weren't legally gotten. Why is that always overlooked.

What may have happened in the Middle Ages isn't considered legally relevant to the ownership of property. It is perfectly possible in the event of the abolition of the Monarchy that the Royal Family could direct that assets that are currently being run for them do not go to the Treasury but instead charities or nonprofit organizations. They certainly would not revert to the government as they were never owned by th government, unless you consider that all property should be actually owned by the government, which is not the UK legal system.

They would revert to the government, unless you think it's right that the royal family should be allowed to keep something for themselves that isn't theirs.

as the crown estate website says, the queen can't just do what she wants with the property. So, presumably, she couldn't just give it to charity, or herself.

The queen can't sell the assets of the Crown Estate for her personal benefit. That doesn't mean that she doesn't legally own them. They are not in the ownership of the government.

it's a good question to ask: in what capacity does she own them? They clearly have strange ownership. For one thing, according to crown estate website, she is not entitled to the revenue from them.

As the crown estates belong to 'the crown' I presume they'd revert to whatever replaced the crown if the royal family was abolished. Which would be the state in some form or other, probably in hold for a newly created presidency.

The Windsor family would only keep their privately held estates (sandringham and not sure what the other is.)

Crown Estates are not Windsor money, the law is clear on that at least.

Actually, having done some googling, this is the most info I can find.

The Crown Estates belong to the Queen 'in the right of the crown' and NOT 'otherwise'.

So if the monarchy were dissolved, the Windsors would have no claim on the lands.

However, they appear to not have provision for what would happen to the land in the event of dissolution. In reality, they would have to revert to the state in some format as the legal entity of 'the crown' would cease to exist.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/do_the_royal_family_have_persona

What this thread actually says is there is no provision for the abolition of the Monarchy in the legal form of the Estates, but not that they would probably go to the government. If the Queen just sold them and became a billionaire yes that would not be allowed, but setting up a nonprofit foundation might be. The Treasury would get less money in this situation, but charities could certainly benefit. The legal position is not clear.

No Lizzzar. They're nothing to do with the queen if she is no longer 'the crown', so she has no say.

The legal position of what actually happens to them is not clear. However, as they were originally established to finance the governing of the land, they would surely revert to that in some other capacity.

Personally I the UK should just have Parliament if the Monarchy is abolished. I accept that most of the ceremony, even if harmless and slightly helpful in international relations and diplomacy, is not strictly necessary. And does Britain really want to be France or the US.

The crown estates are nothing to do with the financing of the government. This was always done through taxation. The Crown Estates are the personal Estates of the Monarch that originally funded the Monarchy and subsequently became administered for the Monarch in return for civil list payments.

And does Britain really want to be France or the US.

But it doesn't have to be either. Those are both unusual instances in that the president has an unusual amount of executive power -- most of us understand the US system, but in France, for instance, the president outranks the prime minister even though the PM is head of the government, and is the person who selects the PM from the ruling party, and also has significant powers in foreign relations, defence and some other things.

It would be perfectly possible to opt to have a presidency with largely ceremonial powers, on a public service salary, with the use of a state building to live in, and publicly-funded security and transports, for not much annual cost. At any rate, I'd be very surprised if many people in the UK wanted to replace the monarchy with an elected head of state with considerable executive powers.

The Irish model feels more applicable for the UK. Their president occupies a very similar role to the Queen currently, with the real head of state stuff done by the PM. And it's very good value for money.

However, rightly or wrongly, we're a long way off abolishing the monarchy. At least until Charles gets his hands on the throne.

It would be perfectly possible to opt to have a presidency with largely ceremonial powers, on a public service salary, with the use of a state building to live in, and publicly-funded security and transports, for not much annual cost.

the most similar one would be Canada. While the Queen is the head, the de facto head is the GG, and he/she does basically what you describe (ceremonial, shakes hands, looks nice). Frankly, I don't see the need for that either (again, a high level of extravagance given the current climate). The HoS in both cases (Canada/UK) has a constitutional role that crops up every 80 years. No doubt this can be handled more cheaply.

The crown estates are nothing to do with the financing of the government. The Crown Estates are the personal Estates of the Monarch that originally funded the Monarchy and subsequently became administered for the Monarch in return for civil list payments.

Again, no. They're everything to do with financing government. They arose from acquisitions that William the Conqueror got via the Norman conquest which were passed from monarch to monarch to fund the general expense of government, i.e. administration, security, etc. They were intended to fund 'the country' not 'the monarchy'.

By the time of George III the revenue wasn't enough to fund what was necessary, so he handed them over to parliament, together with abrogating his responsibility to fund the civil government, in return for the civil lists.

The Crown Estates are the personal Estates of the Monarch
That's not true.

If you saying that the monarchy is the same as the government, maybe that would be true. In the Middle Ages some monarchs obviously regarded it as true. But they still used their estates mainly for their personal expenses and did tax. Also, should there be any doubt about the government and the monarchy not being the same, and the Divine Right of kings being untrue, the UK has had the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution.

I probably should have said the Monarch's public, rather than personal estates and yes the Crown Estates cannot be sold for profit. Nevertheless they were originally private estates.

Nevertheless they were originally private estates.

It's all very murky though. Even in their original form, I don't think we can consider them 'private' as we understand that term today.

Firstly, they came about via conquest, taken from families who owned them 'privately'. You can argue about the rights and wrongs of the Norman conquest if you like. Probably goes beyond the scope of this discussion.

Secondly, they were specified for a very particular purpose, to cover the expenses of government (along with taxes).

Thirdly, they were passed from monarch to monarch rather than granted as part of a will or entail as they would be if they were private.

Fourthly, George III handed them over to Parliament anyway, at which point all semblance of them being 'private' estates disappeared completely.

Lawrie Marlow, the rights and wrongs of The Norman Conquest does sound like a Kingscote history lesson gone seriously off track, and I am getting a bit tired of this discussion. I think that most people believe it was a brutal conquest, but happened a while ago and a Marxist state with land confiscation will probably not be introduced because of it.

Lawrie Marlow, the rights and wrongs of The Norman Conquest does sound like a Kingscote history lesson gone seriously off track

I enjoyed that.

and I am getting a bit tired of this discussion

Well step away then. I think it's clear that they aren't private property now and haven't been since at least the reign of George III. Before that, it's probably not even relevant.