The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #61  
Old 03-22-2008, 01:11 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
I dunno, Elspeth.. reading through a lot of posts here has showed me that many, many members don't understand how it actually works. Comments such as "If the British taxpayers are paying for the monarchy..." and so forth are quite common, I think.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 03-22-2008, 01:35 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,243
If the monarchy ended, would the Crown Estates actually revert to being the personal property of the ex-monarch, though? It seems like it could easily be argued that it's become, like the palaces, something along the lines of "state property" due to the near unbreakable convention that each monarch surrender it. Did Edward VIII have to sell it when he abdicated, or did it automatically change hands? If it's the latter, I don't think it could really be considered personal property.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 03-22-2008, 01:36 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
The Civil List does come out of public funds, as do the funds for royal travel and so on, so in that respect it's true that the monarchy is paid for by the taxpayer. The Crown Estate assets and income are the other side of that equation, which quite a few of the posters do know about even when they're grumbling about the cost to the taxpayer - they're just disregarding that side of the equation for the sake of the argument.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 03-22-2008, 02:07 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
If the monarchy ended, would the Crown Estates actually revert to being the personal property of the ex-monarch, though? It seems like it could easily be argued that it's become, like the palaces, something along the lines of "state property" due to the near unbreakable convention that each monarch surrender it. Did Edward VIII have to sell it when he abdicated, or did it automatically change hands? If it's the latter, I don't think it could really be considered personal property.
My argument would run thus:

The CE belongs to the Sovereign.
The Sovereign voluntarily (via constitutional convention) surrenders the revenues.
Parliament votes (the traitorous bastards!) to abolish the monarchy.
All Sovereign property reverts to the person. That would, in my estimation, be the CE (as the CE is personally ceded), but no Windsor or Buck House, for example (as those are held by the State).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 03-22-2008, 02:42 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,243
Is the Crown Estate personally ceded though? Did Elizabeth who happened to be the Queen cede it or did the Queen who happened also to be Elizabeth cede it? (Does the monarch cede it in a personal role or in an official role?)

If it's specifically property of the monarch (and cannot be the property of anyone else) as opposed to the property of the person who happens to be the monarch (and could diverge from that), I would think it would be the same as the palaces.

I'll have to look into what happened when Edward VIII abdicated in regards to that. If he automatically lost it, I would think that in the event of a republic, the state would keep it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 03-22-2008, 11:45 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
My understanding is that the Sovereign inherits it at Accession, and then renews the arrangement. I wouldn't say it's the same as the palaces, though; they are 'held in trust for the people of the UK', same as the Royal Collection (though I imagine there could be a very pretty fight about that, since most items in the Collection were purchased privately AFAIK). The CE is essentially personal property.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 04-23-2008, 08:11 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyCat View Post
You're probably pretty close Muriel. Except for the titles of B & E. I think Eugenie may give hers up without a fuss, however I feel Andrew (probably at the insistence of Sarah) will fight for keeping them. Call me jaded, but Sarah has nothing to talk about and sell herself with if she is no longer the mother of two princesses.

Cat
Oh, I remember now a couple of years ago, this was talked about. The Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie would have their HRH Princess ... bits taken away in due course and some people were feeling sorry for them. I think it was something to do with the Wessexs decided to style their daughter Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor or something and this triggered the idea of getting rid of those girls' HRH styles etc.

Anyway, they won't be able to pass their HRHs to their children, so, why not let them keep their HRH bit ?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 04-23-2008, 08:15 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 113
Anyway, the monarchy under Charles may be a very short one. Having said that he eats a lot of organic vegetables from his own patch, he may live longer. Oh, he and his wife love mutton, apparently, so they may get some coronary diseases induced by the unsaturated fat.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 04-23-2008, 08:34 PM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
Undoubtedly, he will not reign as long as his mother -- since he had his children in his 30s, his son will probably have a longer reign. I am rather anxious to see how Charles fairs as King. Not to wish the Queen ill though!

Cat
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 04-24-2008, 05:00 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyCat View Post
Undoubtedly, he will not reign as long as his mother -- since he had his children in his 30s, his son will probably have a longer reign. I am rather anxious to see how Charles fairs as King. Not to wish the Queen ill though!

Cat
Oh, whenever I sing the National Anthem, I do mean "Long to reign over us" bit. Those clergy people who are close to the Queen in their service say that she sees her office is as an ordained ministry that she will never think of anything like an early retirement before her own demise as in abdication.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 04-24-2008, 08:06 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
My argument would run thus:

The CE belongs to the Sovereign.
The Sovereign voluntarily (via constitutional convention) surrenders the revenues.
Parliament votes (the traitorous bastards!) to abolish the monarchy.
All Sovereign property reverts to the person. That would, in my estimation, be the CE (as the CE is personally ceded), but no Windsor or Buck House, for example (as those are held by the State).
It's a bit different as there was a contract about handling over the CE in exchange for the payments from the Civil list. So far the queen by her own choice has accepted a change to that contract insofar as she gets much less money in exchange but still lets the CE be part of the public purse.

Once Britain becomes a republic it will remain to be seen how the contract has to be ended and who gets what on ending it. The could do it like Bavaria did it when the former kingdom became a republic: the Royal family kept all their personal possessions that were easily to identify as private. As it was impossible for many things and estates to figure out if the king had bought them as a private person or as the souverain (especially in times hwen there was no difference between the king and the state), these possessions became public property and the State of Bavaria mad a contract with the Royal family to establish a foundation for the benefit of the family of Wittelsbach. This foundation is called "Wittelbacher Ausgleichfond" - meaning Compensation fund for the Wittelsbach family - and the State put in money, estates or the right to use certain parts of certain estates while the rest was opened to the public, all valued at an amount the State and the family had agreed on. Today the Wittelsbach manage this fund with the help of state officials and all revenues are going to support the family. As could be seen from a recent interviewiiwth the Head of the House, The Duke of Bavaria, all sides are perfectly comfortable with it - so much that the family decided to introduce part of their private possessions into this fund in order to make it easier for the public to have access to it - eg the art collections.

I could imagine a similar concept for the Crown Estate - a kind of compensation fund for the benefit of the Windsors in case the monarchy is being abolished.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 04-24-2008, 08:21 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
From the Crown estates Homepage: Our History

"By 1760, when George III acceded to the throne, (...)
taxes had become the prime source of revenue for the United Kingdom and Parliament administered the country, so an agreement was reached that The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return the King would receive a fixed annual payment - today known as the Civil List. This agreement has, at the beginning of each reign, been repeated by every succeeding Sovereign.
In 1955 a Government Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve recommended that to avoid confusion between Government property and Crown land, the latter should be renamed The Crown Estate and should be managed by an independent board. These recommendations were implemented by The Crown Estate Acts of 1956 and 1961."

As English common law is based on the fact that "The king never dies" -meaning that there is no interregnum between reigns, be they ended through death or the signing of an abdiction document, the moment a new king/queen accedes to the throne, the agreement has to be repeated by the new souverain. That means that the agreement automatically comes to an end when a reign ends - because of death, abdication or abolition of the monarchy.

The fact that they even introduced a new bill in 1961 in order "to avoid confusion between Government property and Crown land", means that it is agreed that the Crown Estate belongs to the king/queen and not to the government. IMHo, of course.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 04-24-2008, 09:17 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 113
[quote=Jo of Palatine;758027]It's a bit different as there was a contract about handling over the CE in exchange for the payments from the Civil list. So far the queen by her own choice has accepted a change to that contract insofar as she gets much less money in exchange but still lets the CE be part of the public purse. quote]

Oh, I can say this for certain that the Church of England is no longer funded by the state. Mrs Thatcher decided to take that away from the church in 1980's that the Church House did such a bad bad investment in order to find their own financial source but that went very very badly indeed. Now, many parish churches are closed or sold away to be converted into some luxury flats etc or simply demolished to build some new flats etc. Places such as St Paul's in London etc struggle to keep up their colloosal buildings.

The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England but not the spiritual head of it. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the Primate of All England and the Archbishop of York is the Primate of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the President of the Anglican Communion world wide. In fact, the Queen's role in the affairs of the Church of England is very much a nominal one now. She does not have her part in the course of the General Synod etc that are later dealt by the parliament for, say, even the use of a new prayer book in the Church of England has to be agreed by the parlaiment (though the church does not receive any financial support from the state any longer) However, her title the Fidei defensor is more political since it was confered upon the English monarch by the parliament that the sovereign has to be a member of the Church of England.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 04-24-2008, 09:36 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenissima View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
It's a bit different as there was a contract about handling over the CE in exchange for the payments from the Civil list. So far the queen by her own choice has accepted a change to that contract insofar as she gets much less money in exchange but still lets the CE be part of the public purse.
Oh, I can say this for certain that the Church of England is no longer funded by the state.

snip rest of message
I don't understand why you are talking about the Church of England now?
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 04-24-2008, 09:47 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
I don't understand why you are talking about the Church of England now?
Oh, because I was under the impression that you thought that the Church of England was funded by the public sector.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 04-24-2008, 10:01 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
As English common law is based on the fact that "The king never dies" -meaning that there is no interregnum between reigns, be they ended through death or the signing of an abdiction document, the moment a new king/queen accedes to the throne, the agreement has to be repeated by the new souverain. That means that the agreement automatically comes to an end when a reign ends - because of death, abdication or abolition of the monarchy.
What a perfectly logical way of looking at it. Thank you!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 04-24-2008, 05:03 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huddo View Post
I heard somewhere that when charles steps up to the throne that he intends to scale down the Royal Family!.....does that mean some people will loose their titles?....
No I don't think so. I think he will probably do it by attrition. It will be similar probably to what has happened with Prince Edward's offspring.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 04-24-2008, 05:06 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenissima View Post
Oh, whenever I sing the National Anthem, I do mean "Long to reign over us" bit. Those clergy people who are close to the Queen in their service say that she sees her office is as an ordained ministry that she will never think of anything like an early retirement before her own demise as in abdication.
I cannot imagine that the Queen will ever abdicate. At least I hope not.
She has been good for the country. And based ont he age of her mother, I cannot imagine she is going anywhere anytime soon. Frankly.....I think Charles is destined to have a very short reign and I think he knows that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 04-25-2008, 04:48 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenissima View Post
Now, many parish churches are closed or sold away to be converted into some luxury flats etc or simply demolished to build some new flats etc. Places such as St Paul's in London etc struggle to keep up their colloosal buildings.
The CoE and the Catholic church are among the richest institutions in the country, the reason the churches are being sold off is due to lack of church goers which equals a lack of local funds.
Church of England stores up riches on Earth | Business | The Guardian
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 04-25-2008, 04:55 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenissima View Post
Oh, because I was under the impression that you thought that the Church of England was funded by the public sector.
Really? How come? I can't recall having ever said anything about the CoE and money...
__________________

__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british, camilla, charles iii, charles of wales, coronation, crown jewels, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, queen camilla, titles, william v


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 Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 287 08-24-2014 07:56 AM
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 327 06-12-2014 06:11 PM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 04:36 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 04:06 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:36 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]