To wish all the royal family would become private citizens?

[Snog]

I wish they would all stand down
I'm sick of the virtue signalling, wealth hoarding and hypocrisy while there is so much poverty deprivation and homelessness in the UK with the NHS, mental healthcare and social care in semi collapse.

I don't want a royal family for the UK. I used to but I have really changed my mind.

Nobody visits the UK to see the royal family fgs. And if people will only donate to charities if a royal is a patron they they need a slap.

[EuphorbiaHemlockthe1st]

The UK is full of rich estate owners, multi millionaires who I'm quite sure do everything they legally can to avoid paying more tax than they need to. The Times mentioned one yesterday, worth 63.5 billion with estates in Wiltshire and Scotland. The royals are probably small fry compared to many.
Somehow the Royals get all the jealousy and anger over rich people, whether inherited or self made successes, for the whole of the country. People need to grow up. There will always be rich and poor, lucky and unlucky, get over it for goodness sake. Most rich people live a lovely cossetted life, I'd say the poor Royals with constant media interest are not in that bracket. Give them a break.

[Chuffit]

Imagine if they really did live the life described in the Sue Townsend book? 😂

[malylis]

The crown estates DO belong to the public, the crown is interchangeable with "state" in this sense. It is not private land but was historically used to fund the crown's expenses in running the country.

If the royals stood down the land would be retained by the state, as it was in Ireland when it achieved independence, rather than be retained by the royals.

If the crown did not exist, there would be no crown estate, and it would just be "state" land.

Oh and they don't bring in tourists either, Windsor Castle is the most popular Royal tourist venue, and its about 25 on the list, thats the only one in the top 30 tourist destinations!

[noodlenosefraggle]

The tourist argument is ridiculous even if they did bring in loads of tourists. Do we really need to keep a family as kind of zoo animals for entertainment?

[MissSmith1]

Do we really need to keep a family as kind of zoo animals for entertainment?

I think this is the problem H and M have with the situation.

[LaurieMarlow]

Do we really need to keep a family as kind of zoo animals for entertainment?

Exactly. It’s an appalling situation, good for no one.

The behaviour it prompts in the press / some sections of the public is disgraceful.

[PlanDeRaccordement]

The crown estates DO belong to the public

Not according to the law. They are not government property belonging to the tax payer/public. They belong to whoever is head of state. It’s not their private property either. It’s a 3rd type that goes with the position.

To abolish the monarchy, they’d have to sign over the property to be private property or seize it and make it Government property.

[PlanDeRaccordement]

the land would be retained by the state, as it was in Ireland when it achieved independence, rather than be retained by the royals.

You mean seized by the state. It’s not theirs, if they get it, they are seizing it. You can only retain something you already own and the state/government do not own the crown estates, the crown (head of state) owns them.

[FramingDevice]

You mean seized by the state. It’s not theirs, if they get it, they are seizing it. You can only retain something you already own and the state/government do not own the crown estates, the crown (head of state) owns them.

Let's unpick what the relationship between the head of state and the state is then, shall we? If the monarchy is abolished and replaced with a democratic presidency with purely ceremonial powers and with a term of, say, seven years, that new, elected, temporary HoS will have no need of vast amounts of land, so it can be reabsorbed for the benefit of the state. And the president gets a suitable house for hosting state visits, a car/plane and security on top of a senior civil servant's salary for the term of office, after which s/he becomes a private citizen again.

[malylis]

They belong to the state (not the head of state) ad said the word state is interchangeable with the word crown.

If the monarchy were abolished the Crown Estates would revert to being owned by the state.

It would not be seized, its an archaic thing but the crown is essentially interchangeable with state in terms.

[LaurieMarlow]

To abolish the monarchy, they’d have to sign over the property to be private property

I don’t know where you’re getting this from, it makes no sense.

They belong to ‘The Crown’. If we abolish the monarchy, the entity of ‘The Crown’ will change.

I presume it would be taken over by the state, because what other option is there? It was never private property to begin with, just used by the individual who is the symbolic head.

[PlanDeRaccordement]

They belong to the state (not the head of state) ad said the word state is interchangeable with the word crown.

You are incorrect on both counts:
The Queen herself is part of the state—specifically, Head of State. So the land she owns as Head of State, (meaning the Crown Estate) can be described as the Sovereign’s “public estate.”

The Crown Estates belong to the Crown, which is the Head of State
Head of State is interchangeable with Crown, not State

[PlanDeRaccordement]

Laurie.
What makes no sense about the two options if the monarchy were abolished? The Crown Estates would either become private property or be seized by the State. (Good job not quoting me from “or” onwards).

You know there was always a portion of the Crown Estates which generated income used for the monarchs personal needs. This was called the privy purse (private money). That has morphed into today’s sovreign grant (same thing new name). It wasn’t 100% for running the country, never was and still isn’t.

So they’d have to put at least enough property in the hands of the abdicated monarch to generate at least 25% of the profits the Crown Estates current produce.

[FramingDevice]

Head of State is interchangeable with Crown, not State

Sigh. And if the monarchy were abolished, and the Crown replaced by a ceremonial HoS elected for a seven-year term and on a salary, those lands would be reabsorbed by the state, and perhaps some of their income devoted to paying the HoS's salary, security costs etc.

[PlanDeRaccordement]

Sigh. Yes, that is the OR seized by the State which I have mentioned three times now. What is so hard recognising there is more than one way this could be implemented?..

[LaurieMarlow]

The Crown Estates would either become private property or be seized by the State.

How would they become private property when no private individual (as they never belonged to any private individual) would have any claim to them?

[FramingDevice]

Why do you keep using the word 'seized', as though there is something illicit or forcible about the use to which properties associated with the Crown would be put after the monarchy's abolition?

[LaurieMarlow]

Why do you keep using the word 'seized', as though there is something illicit or forcible about the use to which properties associated with the Crown would be put after the monarchy's abolition?

I’d like to know this too.

[PlanDeRaccordement]

How would they become private property when no private individual (as they never belonged to any private individual) would have any claim to them?

The same way the monarchy would be abolished. By the abdication of the monarch per a negotiated settlement with the Rest of the State (PM and Parliament). And yes, a settlement COULD result in £0 to the ex royal family, but that is highly unlikely given the precedent set by other nation and the millennia old practice of the privy purse.

[LaurieMarlow]

And yes, a settlement COULD result in £0 to the ex royal family, but that is highly unlikely given the precedent set by other nation and the millennia old practice of the privy purse.

Well I’m sure they’d get some goodbye sweetener.

But not because they had any private, personal, legal claim on the Crown estates.

[PlanDeRaccordement]

Because is that not how Governments take things? There is no right of eminent domain, it’s not nationalising a public service/good, it’s not already theirs. Insert whatever other word you want in there, it is at core “taking over ownership” “seize” is just faster to write.
I don’t mean imply anything illegal, although I do think it could be forced on the monarch from the way the thread is framed.

[1Morewineplease]

I would like to see a more discreet and scaled down Royal Family.
I’d also like to see some of their properties liberated and put to better use.
I’d also like to know the extent of Them Royal Collection’ and to get it on permanent display or partially sold ... its treated as HM’s own but it belongs to the Nation and is utterly priceless.

[PlanDeRaccordement]

But not because they had any private, personal, legal claim on the Crown estates.

That’s your opinion. I’m sure there are solicitors that could argue both our sides convincingly,

[LaurieMarlow]

I’m sure there are solicitors that could argue both our sides convincingly

I don’t think there’s a legal mind alive that could argue that the legal entity of ‘The Crown’ is the same thing as the private individual, now dissociated from the monarchy called ‘Mrs Elizabeth Windsor’.

[FramingDevice]

but that is highly unlikely given the precedent set by other nation

Which other monarchy-abolishing nations are you thinking of?