The Monarchy under Charles

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

I doubt it. I think Charles will spend alot more time at the Castle of Mey rather than Balmoral. Windsor Castle is open to the public at the moment but I can't see the Royal Family 'moving out'. They like it too much.

Didn't the Queen Mum own the Castle of Mey?

[BeatrixFan]

Yup. Now it belongs to Charles AFAIK.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Yup. Now it belongs to Charles AFAIK.

AFAIK?? :??:
It's a beautiful castle. Have they modernized it? Does anybody know how much money it takes to run a castle?

[Mermaid1962]

Are you asking what AFAIK means?

"As far as I know."

Originally Posted by Russophile

AFAIK?? :??:
It's a beautiful castle. Have they modernized it? Does anybody know how much money it takes to run a castle?

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

Are you asking what AFAIK means?

"As far as I know."

Yes, thank you!
My only excuse is that I'm old!

[Elspeth]

I think it's been given over to the Castle of Mey Trust or something.

According to the Wikipedia page, Prince Charles and Camilla stay there for a couple of weeks at the end of July.

Castle of Mey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Castle of Mey

[Royal Fan]

I Hope William is Invested Prince of Wales in Wales Like his Father .Wonder if The King will Be Charles III or George VII

[Huddo]

do you think they shoud go along the lines of the Norwegian Monarchy where only the heir and his children have the HRH title whereas everyone else such as Martha Louise and her Aunts have a lessor title?.....

[Empress]

I would really hate to see the monarchies dwindle to less than the current number. It would really be a sad day when we only had immediate members with titles.

[BeatrixFan]

I think in the future though it may be nessecary. I mean, Denmark has a smaller RF than Britain but Denmark is smaller than the UK so it makes sense. It's either a doubled work load for a smaller family or an equal half work load for a larger family. I personally think that the first option is going to be the best choice. Although by rights they should, alot of the public don't know who the Kents and Gloucesters are and so they don't recieve recognition. That wont change until the media cover the 'minor' Royals more. And if they do that, the RF is criticised for being too big. It's a Catch 22 situation. I think it's inevitable that the family will get smaller once the older generation dies off.

[sirhon11234]

But the downsizing of HRH is already going to happen. Once TRHS The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester die the HRH will forever be dropped from the titles and their sons will be known as "His Grace". But then what will happen with all those jewels.

I doubt Beatrice and Eugenie will drop their titles.

[BeatrixFan]

Oh exactly. The HRHs will go, so will their duties and perks. I can't see any Royals dropping their titles. The jewels will stay with the families just as the Westminsters have jewels.

[Empress]

Well, titles will not pass on through Beatrix and Eugenie, so the only grandchildren of the Queen who will pass on titles are Harry and Wills, and now James, although his title is not strictly royal I suppose. So that will of course make the "family" smaller, since QEII only had one sibling, and her children do not carry royal titles as well.

Hopefully Wills and Harry will have large families of well behaved children so that we will have more royal titles again, instead of seeing them all disappear back into the Crown.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Empress

Well, titles will not pass on through Beatrix and Eugenie, so the only grandchildren of the Queen who will pass on titles are Harry and Wills, and now James, although his title is not strictly royal I suppose. So that will of course make the "family" smaller, since QEII only had one sibling, and her children do not carry royal titles as well.

Hopefully Wills and Harry will have large families of well behaved children so that we will have more royal titles again, instead of seeing them all disappear back into the Crown.

That would be very interesting indeed! And what of their children? Would they marry into other royal families?
Less royals means more demand. Simple equation of economics of supply and demand!

[Royal Fan]

Will Kent and Gloucester ever be Royal again maybe as Baron or Viscount Stylings

[PrinceOfCanada]

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.

[wbenson]

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.

[PrinceOfCanada]

Originally Posted by wbenson

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).

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

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.

[Jo of Palatine]

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.