The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #61  
Old 09-18-2018, 04:53 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
TThe Queen and her family would walk away with Balmoral & Sandringham, the artwork they privately own, the jewels they privately own, the Queen's private investments, the Queen's horses and the Queen's stamp collection (I think). HM would enjoy the life of a lady in the country, riding horses. AI do wonder how prepared the RF are for this ever happening, the Queen receives £12million+ from the Duchy of Lancaster that goes to her personally and is used to meet a lot of the costs of other royals etc but that still leave a fair amount going to her personally, could the RF cope even privately without this and just the income from Balmoral, Sandringham and private investments? Recently in the Norwegian RF threads it was said King Harald V's fortune was mainly held in trusts set up in case of an "emergency" to provide income independent of the State - maybe QE2 should think of something similar.
Im sure the RF have provision against the day when maybe they have to go...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-18-2018, 05:24 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: many places, United States
Posts: 1,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Im sure the RF have provision against the day when maybe they have to go...
Of course they do it is just not advertised as no one business.
__________________

__________________
Forgiveness is the fragrance the violet shed on the heel that crushed it - Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-18-2018, 06:07 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 9,670
The former Bavarian royal family stilk receives millions per year from the Bayerische Ausgleichfonds and have rights of use of (parts) of the former royal residences. In many states where the monarchy was ended, prudent arrangements were made. I have no doubt the same will happen in the UK in a similar case.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-18-2018, 06:08 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,558
Whilst I think the Queen definitely had built up some savings for such an event, remember when Charles and Diana divorced in 1996 it was widely reported the Queen had to give Charles the money for his divorce.
I wonder if somewhere, well hidden, there is a plan for what would happen if the monarchy was abolished.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10-28-2018, 07:09 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Boronia, Australia
Posts: 101
Not sure if this is the right place to post this information.

For Australian people there is another royal special on tonight on ABC at 8.30pm. Entitled "Windsor Inc" the show Four Corners will look at the "sophisticated corporate campaign to future-proof the crown". The show charts how the royals have rebuilt their reputation and changed the way they managed "The Firm".

The new look royals are the result of "one of the most spectacular rebranding exercises in modern times"

Sounds fascinating.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-28-2018, 11:19 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Texas, United States
Posts: 3,651
Future of the BRF...I admit i look forward to Charles as king but its for personal reasons and because I feel he has been bullied and mistreated.
__________________
#WomenAgainstFeminism
#DefendOurBoys
#BoysMatter
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-29-2018, 08:14 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,375
Please note that a number of posts relating to the topic of whether or not the Queen would/will/should abdicate have been moved to the The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement? thread.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 10-29-2018, 01:47 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The former Bavarian royal family stilk receives millions per year from the Bayerische Ausgleichfonds and have rights of use of (parts) of the former royal residences. In many states where the monarchy was ended, prudent arrangements were made. I have no doubt the same will happen in the UK in a similar case.

In case someone is interested, the Wittelsbacher-Ausgleichfonds at the moment pays 14 Mill. EUR each year to the family, according to the quality paper of Munich, Die Sueddeutsche (Zeitung).

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Whilst I think the Queen definitely had built up some savings for such an event, remember when Charles and Diana divorced in 1996 it was widely reported the Queen had to give Charles the money for his divorce.
I wonder if somewhere, well hidden, there is a plan for what would happen if the monarchy was abolished.

According to the contract between souverain and parliament about The Crown Estate, the enormous riches of the Crown Estate plus den whole estate of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall revert back to the personal possession of the former souverain. It is the same like with any historic estate of a titled Briton: it becomes private property again. So getting rid of the monarchy would make the current souverain enormously rich in private while the taxpayer would have to pay for a new head of state from the state's money. A bad move!
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-02-2019, 05:42 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,633
More change coming to the British Monarchy in 2019-
https://mobile.twitter.com/rjmyers/s...30841099141122
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-02-2019, 05:51 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,292
Well that's hardly breaking news....aren't we all kinda expecting that to happen as the Queen ages?


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01-02-2019, 06:10 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Well that's hardly breaking news....aren't we all kinda expecting that to happen as the Queen ages?


LaRae
Yes! It’s just worth noting that more transitional changes are coming for the Windsor’s this year.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-02-2019, 07:57 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,292
It is interesting or will be interesting to see who takes over what charity.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 02-26-2019, 06:10 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Wherever I wish, United States
Posts: 116
Given the events celebrating the 50th anniversary of the PoW's investiture, one thing caught my, and other's, attention. Namely that Anne is slated to join Charles, Camilla, the Cambridges, and the Sussexes while Andrew and the Wessexes are not.

Now this could end up being the result of busy schedules, but otherwise, could the choice to include Anne and not her brothers mean that Andrew and the Wessexes are due for a reduced role under Charles? Obviously, they'll still be around, with Edward and Sophie focusing on the DoE awards and Andrew supporting his charities but could we see their visibility and presence decreased, specifically compared to Anne who would be in the same child-of-the-former-monarch role.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 02-26-2019, 06:18 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,558
I said in the other thread where this is being discussed that I personally think that the reasons Andrew and Edward are not yet known to be attending may simply be because of a diary conflict.

I can't imagine Anne would be given a greater role than Edward and Andrew for any particular reason. Yes if she wants to do more than her brothers Charles won't prevent her but I can't see him giving Anne a greater role - for what reason? There are plenty of royal ladies to take up duties - Camilla, Kate & Meghan - just any many as available men.

My point is, whatever we may think about Charles and his relationships with his siblings I think he is professional enough to treat them all as equal in work related matters. Surely people realise he can't just pick and choose which royals are part of his "stream lined" monarchy - he would have to apply the rules fairly - e.g. his wife an sons and their wives as working royals, or those and his siblings and their wives (assuming the situation with Tim stays that he isn't seen as a working royal), or all of those and the Queen's cousins. I can't imagine him picking and choosing those he gets on with against those he may not get on with as much or those who get good PR over those who don't. Anne gets good press now but didn't twenty odd years ago so if the media suddenly talk about Princess Sourpuss again will he drop her from his working royals?

I imagine it will either be all his siblings or none doing public duties.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 02-26-2019, 07:20 PM
EllieCat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 509
Quote:
I can't see him giving Anne a greater role - for what reason? There are plenty of royal ladies to take up duties - Camilla, Kate & Meghan - just any many as available men.
Let's not forget Anne is The Princess Royal.

I agree with I think Prince Charles will include his siblings equally when he is King.

I saw that TV programme last night, Prince, Son and Heir; really good. I think he'll make a very good king.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 02-27-2019, 05:49 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgtns View Post
If I remember correctly the Crown "owned" or currently "owns' all the museums, castles and properties, but exchanged their direct control to the government. In exchange for these properties and the income they generate the Queen or King takes a purse for covering their family and upkeep.

Do you think the RF will simply hand over the goods and walk away if the populace rejects the monarchy? I wonder if the Royal Family continued to take the purse without the attendant "work" would that be acceptable? I bet they'd love to take off their shoes and kick back. I think that all the charities that underpin the British nation would continue on and they (the family) would still be around.

What do you think would happen?

The question of ownership is complex and maybe some lawyers here could enlighten us.

The British State actually doesn’t own the palaces or the artwork therein. They are placed in ( public ?) trusts that are held by the monarch for the nation. The Crown, Estate, which is separate from the Occupied Palaces Estate., is not owned by the government either, but is, however, used for commercial purposes and its revenue goes directly to the Treasury with a percentage of the surplus revenue used as the sovereign’s grant.

The status of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall is somewhat more complicated . Although they have same characteristics that would be typical of public bodies, they are normally considered private trusts.

The kind of settlement the RF would get in the event of the abolition of the monarchy would have a great impact on its personal finances. If the former Sovereign walked away with the Duchies and, even more so, with the Crown Estate, he would be a billionaire. But, even if the King kept only his undisputed private wealth (, Sandrigham, Balmoral, the personal jewel and stamp collections, etc.), he would still be a multimillionaire.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 02-27-2019, 07:18 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The question of ownership is complex and maybe some lawyers here could enlighten us.

Not so long ago I read a scholarly paper about that question and the authors agreed that if the monarchy ceases to exist, the government needs to divide the Royal assets between the "Body politic" of the wearer of the "Crown" and the "Body natural". "The body natural" of the Queen eg owns Sandringham and Balmoral, "The Body politic" holds the Crown Jewels and the Crown estate "in trust for the nation". But, as the Crown estate is based on the once private belongings of the souverain and there have been several Acts about it, which all agree that the souverain has a private interest in some of the assets, the consent was that the government would give a part of the Crown Estate to the Head of the Windsor family's "Body natural" and another part would fall to the State as the new "Body politic" of the souverain. The recommendation was that the Royal family would get about 25 % of the Crown Estate, while the new "State" would get 75% including eg Windsor Castle but probably not Buckingham Palace, because that was privately bought by George III. after the foundation of the Crown Estate was layed in 1760.

The same with the Crown Jewels which belong to the nation, but the Royal collection would be divided through a new law with the Windsor's getting their share eg all jewels that were meant as private gifts, but considered as gifts to the "Body political" of the members of the Royal family who were gifted with it.

I guess there would be a lot of hackling about who gets what, but in the end I guess the Windsors leave with the assets that can be privately possessed while the State takes those which costs a lot of money to uphold for the public's right to access.

It is agreed by government and the Royal family that the DUchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, though "Royal" duchies, are privately owned estates. The government controls the accounts since 1848, but only to make sure there is no mismanagement of that estate, as they are currently "in trust" for the next souverain and the next Duke of Cornwall. In case of the abolition of the monarchy, these estates would still belong to their current owners, but these could then do with them whatever they wanted.



So in the end, the Windsors would keep a lot of their possessions, but as privately owned and under no govermental control.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 02-28-2019, 08:32 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
Not so long ago I read a scholarly paper about that question and the authors agreed that if the monarchy ceases to exist, the government needs to divide the Royal assets between the "Body politic" of the wearer of the "Crown" and the "Body natural". "The body natural" of the Queen eg owns Sandringham and Balmoral, "The Body politic" holds the Crown Jewels and the Crown estate "in trust for the nation". But, as the Crown estate is based on the once private belongings of the souverain and there have been several Acts about it, which all agree that the souverain has a private interest in some of the assets, the consent was that the government would give a part of the Crown Estate to the Head of the Windsor family's "Body natural" and another part would fall to the State as the new "Body politic" of the souverain. The recommendation was that the Royal family would get about 25 % of the Crown Estate, while the new "State" would get 75% including eg Windsor Castle but probably not Buckingham Palace, because that was privately bought by George III. after the foundation of the Crown Estate was layed in 1760.

The same with the Crown Jewels which belong to the nation, but the Royal collection would be divided through a new law with the Windsor's getting their share eg all jewels that were meant as private gifts, but considered as gifts to the "Body political" of the members of the Royal family who were gifted with it.

I guess there would be a lot of hackling about who gets what, but in the end I guess the Windsors leave with the assets that can be privately possessed while the State takes those which costs a lot of money to uphold for the public's right to access.

It is agreed by government and the Royal family that the DUchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, though "Royal" duchies, are privately owned estates. The government controls the accounts since 1848, but only to make sure there is no mismanagement of that estate, as they are currently "in trust" for the next souverain and the next Duke of Cornwall. In case of the abolition of the monarchy, these estates would still belong to their current owners, but these could then do with them whatever they wanted.



So in the end, the Windsors would keep a lot of their possessions, but as privately owned and under no govermental control.

Thanks, Kataryn, for your thorough explanation, which is more or less what I expected based on common sense. Overall, it sounds like a very good deal for the Windsors if it ever happens.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 03-15-2019, 02:16 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 485
Divergence of William & Harry's royal roles

With the announcement of the upcoming split in the current joint Royal Household of both the Cambridges and Sussexes, along with the relocation of the Sussexes, and questions about a possible splitting of the Royal Foundation, have the riyal roles of the two brothers actually started to diverge?

Surely a new Royal Household will lead to a lot of duplication in existing roles of their staff?
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 03-15-2019, 05:41 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,358
William is clearly being positioned as the future King with a separate independent household while Harry is being clearly positioned as a royal with lesser status and an office located within BP where the offices of the rest of the lesser/minor royals are located - Andrew, Edward, Anne all have their offices in the set up in BP where Harry's new household are being placed.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Future of the Danish Monarchy Empress Royal House of Denmark 721 08-15-2019 12:27 PM
Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1502 07-21-2019 08:37 AM
Future of the Belgian monarchy Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 118 01-24-2018 09:35 PM
Future of the Dutch Monarchy Marengo Dutch Royals 39 11-29-2017 09:53 AM




Popular Tags
administrator archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy belgian royal belgian royal family birthday celebration bracelets crown crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crusades current events danish royalty denmark discussão duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke of sussex dutch royal family earl of wessex felipe vi foundation french revolution friendly city future genealogy germany greece headship house of bernadotte jerusalem kiko king salman lady louise mountbatten-windsor lithuania lithuanian palaces meghan markle memoir monaco history monaco royal monarchism monogram mountbatten netflix nobel prize official visit pakistan prince charles prince harry princely family of monaco prince peter princess margaret princess royal queen paola rania of jordan rown royal children royal tour russian imperial family saudi arabia savoy saxony south africa spain spanish history state visit state visit to denmark sweden trump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:07 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises
×