Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: If the monarchy is dissolved, what will Will and Kate do?  (Read 15005 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Emily
Banned
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 308

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 889





Ignore
« Reply #30 on: July 28, 2013, 06:18:53 PM »

The royal family own the two wealthiest royal duchies in their own right, as private citizens. Most everything else would revert back to the nation.  But Lancaster and Cornwall go with the Windsors.  


No - the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster belong to the state - their use is granted to the Prince of Wales and monarch respectively during their lifetimes, it's covered by a whole bunch of ancient statutes but they don't own them outright. If the monarchy dissolved, the estates would go to the Treasury, as the statutes specifically say that they can only used by persons who have the official status of Prince of Wales and Monarch - once their titles are stripped, the land is stripped too.

I think only Sandringham and Balmoral belong to the Windsors outright.
Logged
Future Crayon

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 1295

Offline Offline

Iceland Iceland

Posts: 6477


Too-wit-too-whom?


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #31 on: July 28, 2013, 06:20:07 PM »

I think there's a huge question mark over the role of the royal family post QE II. In Charles, we'll have a king who may be a bit grander than we're used to and who is used to a fair amount of political influence.

How will we feel about a more political monarch? A monarch with views on organic food, or power generation, or architecture?

And what of the BRF under Charles? Can we picture W, K or Harry touring the light houses of Scotland, opening primary schools, going on trade missions, etc? Traditional royal duties for the queen's 4 children anfd their spouses.

W and K could become celebrity royals, whose popularity depends on their latest outfit, cute baby picture or shopping trip. Is that sustainable for a royal family?

Not sure.

Sondra made these points better than I a few posts above, but as the BRF is likely to survive does not mean that it's role won't come in for ever greater scrutiny and criticism.
Logged

I've started blogging about art... https://unhelpfulgalleryguide.wordpress.com/

ScottishRose
Banned
Small Member
****

Reputation: 75

Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 565


Just call me the real rebel without a cause




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: July 28, 2013, 06:21:14 PM »

The royal family own the two wealthiest royal duchies in their own right, as private citizens. Most everything else would revert back to the nation.  But Lancaster and Cornwall go with the Windsors. 

I believe Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle are also private property of HM, as they were purchased by Queen Victoria, using her private purse. 

But, if any public funds are being used to run or maintain these homes, that would stop. And if the royals receive any tax breaks for 'being royal'....that stops. And the public security compensation stops.

The Duchy of Lancaster is the personal property of Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor and was valued at £348 million in 2010.

The Duchy of Cornwall is the personal property of Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor and was valued at £728 million in 2011.

Over £1 billion gross worth?  I think everyone would be just fine.

(Just the thought of the Windsors having to pay tax on this huge chunk of money and castles would mean they would probably have to sell one or both castles)





The queen owns Sandringham and Balmoral. Charles owns High Grove and a few other estates. Anne owns Gatcome. Edward and Andrew would be the two displaced, as their homes are leased from the crown estate.

The estates have huge properties. Rental of some of the land and cottages is already done to pay for the up keep (why Will and Kate can't use their Sandringham cottage for a few years). If more was needed, they could allow for tours and such, when they are not on the property.

The royals do pay taxes, have for some years. They'd have to pay land tax, and income tax if they got real jobs, but their estates make enough money, to cover the taxes and then some.

The royal family own the two wealthiest royal duchies in their own right, as private citizens. Most everything else would revert back to the nation.  But Lancaster and Cornwall go with the Windsors. 


No - the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster belong to the state - their use is granted to the Prince of Wales and monarch respectively during their lifetimes, it's covered by a whole bunch of ancient statutes but they don't own them outright. If the monarchy dissolved, the estates would go to the Treasury, as the statutes specifically say that they can only used by persons who have the official status of Prince of Wales and Monarch - once their titles are stripped, the land is stripped too.

I think only Sandringham and Balmoral belong to the Windsors outright.

Yes, of the official residences, they only own Balmoral and Sandringham. Charles owns a number of other estates, including High Grove. They would be able to make a great deal of money from the estates they do own, without selling them.
Logged
Emily
Banned
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 308

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 889





Ignore
« Reply #33 on: July 28, 2013, 06:26:06 PM »

I think there's a huge question mark over the role of the royal family post QE II. In Charles, we'll have a king who may be a bit grander than we're used to and who is used to a fair amount of political influence.

How will we feel about a more political monarch? A monarch with views on organic food, or power generation, or architecture?


Charles' problem is that his popularity has collapsed but his ambitions haven't. He's gone from 50% approval in 1984 to 21% approval in 2012 - and it's all his own fault. If you are popular you can get away with anything, but if you are not, you'll get picked up on every little thing.
Logged
le_modeliste

Small Member
****

Reputation: 110

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 566





Ignore
« Reply #34 on: July 28, 2013, 06:27:17 PM »

I think the BRF will survive the transition from Elizabeth to Charles just fine, as there will be enough patriotism and wanting to stick with tradition and honor the former queen and all that. It's what Charles does in his first five years as King that I think will be the big test - once all that goodwill starts to wear off and he really has to stand on his own two legs and not his mother's popularity.
Logged
StephanieDesiree

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 330

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1843


I look good, but I am such a bitch.




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: July 28, 2013, 06:36:32 PM »

The royal family own the two wealthiest royal duchies in their own right, as private citizens. Most everything else would revert back to the nation.  But Lancaster and Cornwall go with the Windsors. 


No - the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster belong to the state - their use is granted to the Prince of Wales and monarch respectively during their lifetimes, it's covered by a whole bunch of ancient statutes but they don't own them outright. If the monarchy dissolved, the estates would go to the Treasury, as the statutes specifically say that they can only used by persons who have the official status of Prince of Wales and Monarch - once their titles are stripped, the land is stripped too.

I think only Sandringham and Balmoral belong to the Windsors outright.


For Lancaster specifically, I strongly disagree. 

The Duke of Lancaster became the English King (Henry IV) and that is how the Lancaster Duchy appended itself to the royal line.

If the royal title disappears, the Lancaster duchy should AND WILL remain with the family.

Cornwall I haven't researched as much.  I'll take your word on it.
Logged

Pippa catches the scent of a wealthy bachelor.

Nice_Hat

Small Member
****

Reputation: 83

Offline Offline

Posts: 635





Ignore
« Reply #36 on: July 28, 2013, 07:00:38 PM »

After the queen dies, I'm mostly sure Australia will cut their ties. With them, there will be some more, though I can't easily pinpoint how many.

I would like for the UK to abolish it altogether before WC take over. All that climbing for naught. That's what I want.
Logged

Maria
Administrator
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 2292

Offline Offline

Posts: 13076




« Reply #37 on: July 28, 2013, 07:21:16 PM »

Here's another interesting poll - it's from IPSOS-Mori who have been asking the exact same question since 1984, so you get a sense of changes over time.

http://www.ipsos-mori.com...ItemId=2412&view=wide

Q Which two or three members of the Royal Family do you like the most?
(Unprompted answers)





Prince William is way more popular than Diana was in her heyday, which I wasn't expecting.

Wow, Randy Andy is as popular as Camilla. That's got to hurt..
Logged
Miss Waynfleet

Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 2268

Offline Offline

Posts: 12337





Ignore
« Reply #38 on: July 28, 2013, 07:28:18 PM »

lol

Even Cam is more popular than Eddy  Laugh bounce But I´m not surprised, A&E are arrogant buffoons.
Logged
Emily
Banned
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 308

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 889





Ignore
« Reply #39 on: July 28, 2013, 07:30:55 PM »

The royal family own the two wealthiest royal duchies in their own right, as private citizens. Most everything else would revert back to the nation.  But Lancaster and Cornwall go with the Windsors. 


No - the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster belong to the state - their use is granted to the Prince of Wales and monarch respectively during their lifetimes, it's covered by a whole bunch of ancient statutes but they don't own them outright. If the monarchy dissolved, the estates would go to the Treasury, as the statutes specifically say that they can only used by persons who have the official status of Prince of Wales and Monarch - once their titles are stripped, the land is stripped too.

I think only Sandringham and Balmoral belong to the Windsors outright.


For Lancaster specifically, I strongly disagree. 

The Duke of Lancaster became the English King (Henry IV) and that is how the Lancaster Duchy appended itself to the royal line.

If the royal title disappears, the Lancaster duchy should AND WILL remain with the family.

Cornwall I haven't researched as much.  I'll take your word on it.

Here's what republic has to say:

http://www.republic.org.uk/blog/?p=1512

Quote
Let’s start by clearing something up: the Duchies are not the ‘personal estates’ of the monarch and her heir as Thomas likes to claim. They were part of the same set of Crown lands from which the Crown Estates are formed. They were kept separate from the Crown Estates when the revenue deal was made in the eighteenth century which led to the creation of the Civil List.

We know the land is not a personal possession for a variety of reasons: both Duchies are legislated for quite separately to other personal estates; both have to present accounts to parliament; as Thomas acknowledges the ‘owners’ of these estates are not allowed any benefit other than the income and profit – they can’t, for example, sell off the whole Duchy; the Duchies are not theirs to keep. If Charles removes himself from the line of succession he loses the Duchy, as he does if he becomes King.

The Duchies are part of the state, set aside to provide an income for the head of state and her heir. They are the possession of Charles and Elizabeth Windsor only ‘by right of the Crown’. It has long been established that who the head of state and heir are is ultimately decided by parliament.

In becoming a republic parliament would simply pass the Crown to the British people, granting them perpetual sovereignty. As such both the Duchies would be available to the people and their parliament would be free to amend the legislation governing the revenues of the Duchies so the funds can all flow to the Treasury.


The chancellor of the duchy of lancaster is the same person as the chancellor of the exchequer - and the chancellor of the exchequer is the politician from the party that holds a majority in parliament. It's under state control and the money is granted by the state to the living monarch by the chancellor.
Logged
Emily
Banned
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 308

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 889





Ignore
« Reply #40 on: July 28, 2013, 07:33:05 PM »

Here's another interesting poll - it's from IPSOS-Mori who have been asking the exact same question since 1984, so you get a sense of changes over time.

http://www.ipsos-mori.com...ItemId=2412&view=wide

Q Which two or three members of the Royal Family do you like the most?
(Unprompted answers)





Prince William is way more popular than Diana was in her heyday, which I wasn't expecting.

Wow, Randy Andy is as popular as Camilla. That's got to hurt..

 

This is why there will be no objection to a slimmed down monarchy - the public doesn't value or even register the minor royals.
Logged
Maria
Administrator
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 2292

Offline Offline

Posts: 13076




« Reply #41 on: July 28, 2013, 07:36:50 PM »

Here's another interesting poll - it's from IPSOS-Mori who have been asking the exact same question since 1984, so you get a sense of changes over time.

http://www.ipsos-mori.com...ItemId=2412&view=wide

Q Which two or three members of the Royal Family do you like the most?
(Unprompted answers)





Prince William is way more popular than Diana was in her heyday, which I wasn't expecting.

Wow, Randy Andy is as popular as Camilla. That's got to hurt..

 

This is why there will be no objection to a slimmed down monarchy - the public doesn't value or even register the minor royals.

I know many less flattering things can be said about Charles but on this subject he's quite in tune with the people. Which I why I personally haven't given up hope in him yet.  Beer
Logged
Little_star
Board Helper
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 2491

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 27674



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #42 on: July 28, 2013, 08:35:10 PM »

Would I like Britain to dissolve the monarchy? Yes. Do I think it's likely? No.

What I think is more likely is other members of the Commonwealth rejecting the monarchy as irrelevant and wanting to be able to choose their own head of state. If several major Commonwealth countries went that way (Australia, Canada) then other would follow.

How would W & K, and indeed Charles and Cam) cope as members of a reduced monarchy with waning influence and increased scrutiny of finances? Quite badly, I think.

If I could star you again I would. Yes

I would love for the monarchy to be dissolved but I don't see it happening any time soon.
Logged

“The truth is not simply what you think it is; it is also the circumstances in which it is said, and to whom, why, and how it is said.”
Grafin Lavendel
Banned
Mini Member
***

Reputation: 28

Offline Offline

Germany Germany

Posts: 219





Ignore
« Reply #43 on: July 28, 2013, 08:54:58 PM »

Balmoral is the official summer residence of a monarch. Sandrigham is private. Bought by king George as private residence for the family. The king or queen owns sandringham as private property and that explains why kind edward who abdicated was asked to sell it to back to the family.
Explains why prince philip is resting there on leave from royal duties and protocol. While in balmoral the queen enjoys her holiday but she has official servants, protocol and her secuity is reduced or they can holiday there too with their families. When in 3 weeks prince philip is fit, he will be back to offical protocol at balmoral .

The queen gave william a house from sandringham,  i think also to secure the estate as she fears ones charles is the family heir he might sell it. But with william in there, her relatives living on the land are secure from charles,  same story as with king edward viii who abdicated for a mistress does not hold the family hostage.
Logged
StephanieDesiree

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 330

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1843


I look good, but I am such a bitch.




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: July 28, 2013, 10:48:20 PM »

The royal family own the two wealthiest royal duchies in their own right, as private citizens. Most everything else would revert back to the nation.  But Lancaster and Cornwall go with the Windsors. 


No - the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster belong to the state - their use is granted to the Prince of Wales and monarch respectively during their lifetimes, it's covered by a whole bunch of ancient statutes but they don't own them outright. If the monarchy dissolved, the estates would go to the Treasury, as the statutes specifically say that they can only used by persons who have the official status of Prince of Wales and Monarch - once their titles are stripped, the land is stripped too.

I think only Sandringham and Balmoral belong to the Windsors outright.


For Lancaster specifically, I strongly disagree. 

The Duke of Lancaster became the English King (Henry IV) and that is how the Lancaster Duchy appended itself to the royal line.

If the royal title disappears, the Lancaster duchy should AND WILL remain with the family.

Cornwall I haven't researched as much.  I'll take your word on it.

Here's what republic has to say:

http://www.republic.org.uk/blog/?p=1512

Quote
Let’s start by clearing something up: the Duchies are not the ‘personal estates’ of the monarch and her heir as Thomas likes to claim. They were part of the same set of Crown lands from which the Crown Estates are formed. They were kept separate from the Crown Estates when the revenue deal was made in the eighteenth century which led to the creation of the Civil List.

We know the land is not a personal possession for a variety of reasons: both Duchies are legislated for quite separately to other personal estates; both have to present accounts to parliament; as Thomas acknowledges the ‘owners’ of these estates are not allowed any benefit other than the income and profit – they can’t, for example, sell off the whole Duchy; the Duchies are not theirs to keep. If Charles removes himself from the line of succession he loses the Duchy, as he does if he becomes King.

The Duchies are part of the state, set aside to provide an income for the head of state and her heir. They are the possession of Charles and Elizabeth Windsor only ‘by right of the Crown’. It has long been established that who the head of state and heir are is ultimately decided by parliament.

In becoming a republic parliament would simply pass the Crown to the British people, granting them perpetual sovereignty. As such both the Duchies would be available to the people and their parliament would be free to amend the legislation governing the revenues of the Duchies so the funds can all flow to the Treasury.


The chancellor of the duchy of lancaster is the same person as the chancellor of the exchequer - and the chancellor of the exchequer is the politician from the party that holds a majority in parliament. It's under state control and the money is granted by the state to the living monarch by the chancellor.

Alas, you are correct about Lancaster. Several land acts have made the duchy part of the Sovereign's privy purse.  Not part of the Crown Estates, but for the 'Sovereign's' use. 

Thank you for the clarification.  : )
Logged

Pippa catches the scent of a wealthy bachelor.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: