Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think it's time the Queen passed the throne to Charles?

395 replies

CatherineOfAragonsPrayerBook · 18/11/2019 18:48

Given recent events concerning Prince Andrew, and the ensuing scandal, is it time for Charles to take over as King now? The Queen has been dedicated all her life to her civil duties, and continues to perform them well, but as she and the DOE are getting older, it appears her/their ability to control situations with some of the other members of the royal family is waning.

It could be argued that both Harry and Meghan and now Prince Andrew seem to be ignoring advice, unwisely sharing their grievances with the media and striking out on their own with the inevitable backlash (I am referring to interviews, not libel actions). Anecdotally, more and more people are saying it's time to get rid of the royal institution.

If Charles were to become King, it is probable that he would streamline the RF to just William and his heirs and make some needed adjustments, such a move might renew interest in the RF, increase their popularity and ensure their continuance as Charles is more in touch with the mood of the nation.

Also just read this provocative Daily Mail article,

Headline: 'The Queen 'backs' Prince Andrew and 'believes him 100 per cent'

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7698021/Queen-goes-horse-ride-Windsor-Castle-grounds-days-Prince-Andrews-car-crash-interview.html

Do think something has to change.

OP posts:
Gin96 · 20/11/2019 15:37

Get rid of the Crown the assets belong to the people.

StoneofDestiny · 20/11/2019 15:48

Agreed - the assets have been accumulated in the back of the people, not by any hard work by the royals.

franklymydearidontgivea · 20/11/2019 15:55

The Crown Estate Is all inherited assets, so by your logic, no one should be able to inherit any fixed asset, so that when you die all assets are given to the state?

lyralalala · 20/11/2019 15:59

the Queen who has never put a foot wrong

The Queen has got it wrong with the public mood several times. Other than Diana the other two biggies are the Windsor Castle fire/repairs and the Aberfan disaster

How she responded to getting it wrong is why people forget she got it wrong

LaurieMarlow · 20/11/2019 16:32

The Crown Estate Is all inherited assets

No it isn’t

cakeisalwaystheanswer · 20/11/2019 16:41

The whole question of who owns what after the monarchy is abolished is easily solved by the French solution. Nobody other than the French govt claims to own Versailles.

StoneofDestiny · 20/11/2019 17:06

The Crown Estate Is all inherited assets

Cobblers!
At any rate the assets are the rewards of the public paying their taxes to support an institution and royal real estate. The assets should return to the public purse.

Lulualla · 20/11/2019 17:42

@StoneofDestiny
The crown estate is a collection of specific places/things. The royal family own them in name only. All aspects of it are run like a business by the government (I can't remmebr the ins and outs but treasury is invovled). 100% of profits are handed back to the people, then 25% of those profits are given to the queen as the sovereign grant.

So the crown estate really is "run by the people". If the royal family didn't exist then we just wouldn't give them the 25%, but we would lose a lot more money from the loss of their economic boost. And the government would end up selling it all off like they do with everything else, so it would be taxed like normal privately owned businesses and profits would go to shareholders instead of the public purse. We would be worse off.

The crown estate doesn't include things like the duchy of Cornwall or Lancaster or anything like that. They have their own privately owned properties which are taxed like normal businesses. But the actual "crown estate" includes a whole heap of things and the profits go to us, minus the queen's stipend.

Lulualla · 20/11/2019 17:46

The queen's money comes from 25% of profits from the crown estate. The queens privy purse is made from her income from the duchy of Lancaster. I think she is given other money for specific things like repairs to Buckingham palace and maybe some security costs. But mostly, it's the sovereign grant and her income from the duchy of Lancaster which pays for her stuff and other extended royals.

The duchy of Cornwall provides the purse for Charles and his children, so the Sussexes and Cambridges and Charles himself are supported by his duchy.

There's more ins and outs there, but that's the basics.

LaurieMarlow · 20/11/2019 17:47

The royal family own them in name only.

No.

The royal family don’t own them at all.

They are owned by a legal entity called ‘The Crown’. If the royals cease to inhabit ‘The Crown’ they have no claim or rights on any of it, for any purpose.

They are not Windsor family properties or in any sense theirs to do what they like with.

Lulualla · 20/11/2019 17:48

@Gin96
See above. The profits from the crown estate are given to the people, minus 25%. Without the royals, the government would sell it all off. No more profits, just tax but the rich always manage to avoid those taxes. In the end, the public purse would lose out.

LaurieMarlow · 20/11/2019 17:49

The legal standing of the duchy’s on the other hand appear to be as grey as it’s possible to be.

I’d love to hear the opinion of a legal expert who’s studied it.

Lulualla · 20/11/2019 17:51

@LaurieMarlow
Which is what I said. They only have an "ownership" because they happen to be the crown. They don't actually own them, they don't get the profits, they cannot sell any of them, they can't give any of them away. It's just because they are the crown that they have any association with them at all.

People on this thread are acting like they own the estate and we should get it back. I've explained that that's not true and not how it works. I'm not sure why you're arguing with me?

Lulualla · 20/11/2019 17:54

The point of the duchies is to provide a private sorce of income for the Royals, separate from their grant.
But I've not read enough to know the legalities of ownership.

But... about the crown estate!! Something I found out today is that years ago, Prince Andrew managed to get the people managing some land owned by the Crown to rent it out to his friend for dirt cheap. He shouldn't have had any influence on that but he managed it somehow.

LaurieMarlow · 20/11/2019 17:54

Without the royals, the government would sell it all off

This is bollocks.

They are administered by a separate body that u oh s neither the royal family nor parliament. No reason why dissolving they RF would change that.

Their original purpose, as set up by William the Conqueror was to fund the administration of the state (which is what most of the profits are used for now, minus what we give to the royals). The most logical assumption is that there would be more money for this purpose.

Their

LaurieMarlow · 20/11/2019 17:55

Hopefully it’s clear now where our opinions differ lula

Puzzledandpissedoff · 20/11/2019 17:57

The royal family don’t own (the Crown estates) at all
They are owned by a legal entity called ‘The Crown’. If the royals cease to inhabit ‘The Crown’ they have no claim or rights on any of it, for any purpose

Indeed - but if they were got rid of, I believe they'd fight like dogs to retain whatever they chose, insisting that what was once called a Crown Body is actually something else

You know, just like the Duchy of Cornwall, whose status (as you rightly suggest) changes according to what its principal wants at any given time

LaurieMarlow · 20/11/2019 17:58

i believe they'd fight like dogs to retain whatever they chose, insisting that what was once called a Crown Body is actually something else

They wouldn’t have a legal leg to stand on.

The duchys are another matter. I am very unclear about who they would revert to.

Lulualla · 20/11/2019 18:07

@LaurieMarlow

If you assume that what happened in Ireland would happen here then the crown estate would be handed over to the republic, and it would them deciding what happened to them. The remaining Irish crown estates became the property of the new state.
Looking at the way our government manages things... I can't see them remaining intact and sticking to medieval agreements to keep the estate public and the money for the public purse.

LaurieMarlow · 20/11/2019 18:09

Ireland is totally irrelevant Confused

I’m taking about view the CE are administered currently, in the UK.

LaurieMarlow · 20/11/2019 18:11

Parliament in the UK would not have free reign to do what they wanted with the CE because they are administered by an entirely separate body.

IcedPurple · 20/11/2019 18:15

Andrew is "stepping down" from public life. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Lulualla · 20/11/2019 18:15

They might actually be able to argue something. Was it George III who came to agreement with the government that the land would be managed on behalf of the government, and all profits handed over in exchange for a stipend for the royal family. If the royal family no longer exist, and they no longer receive a stipend, then that agreement is void. The royals may be able to argue ownership of they can trace back lineage to the original purchaser of each asset.
It's an interesting argument... which probably wouldn't work. But hopefully we won't ever have to deal with it.

QueenOfTheAndals · 20/11/2019 18:17

Stepping down from public life but still being funded with public money, I suspect. The royal equivalent of gardening leave!

IcedPurple · 20/11/2019 18:18

If he's no longer a 'working royal' I don't think he'll be entitled to taxpayer funded security or other perks. Though yeah, he'll still have a pretty luxurious life so hardly a punishment.

I wonder if he knows that there's some even more horrible story about to break?

Swipe left for the next trending thread