The Monarchy under Charles


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 ?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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...
 
I keep wondering about the idea of a slimmed down monarchy - from what the media says and the general impression overall it might seem that Charles is not particularly close to his siblings and nieces and nephews, so this means he might see it as acceptable to "cut out" some members of the family in the sense of public engagements and public roles, but do you think the public and the media would accept Charles effectively telling Ann to stop working? Especaiily as for example, Camilla doesn't work nearly as hard as Ann. Wouldn't it just make Charles look, well, vindictive?
 
I cannot imagine that the Queen will ever abdicate. At least I hope not.

She won't. This has been said time and time and time again. HM's reign will end with her death, period. Even if (God forbid!) she becomes incapacitated, there will be a Regency, not an abdication.
 
I keep wondering about the idea of a slimmed down monarchy - from what the media says and the general impression overall it might seem that Charles is not particularly close to his siblings and nieces and nephews, so this means he might see it as acceptable to "cut out" some members of the family in the sense of public engagements and public roles, but do you think the public and the media would accept Charles effectively telling Ann to stop working? Especaiily as for example, Camilla doesn't work nearly as hard as Ann. Wouldn't it just make Charles look, well, vindictive?
That's my worry with Charles as king, because I do tend to think Charles is Jealous of his siblings. I do think he might be vindicitive towards them, which will cause a massive scandal.

I think Charles is his own worst enemy at times.

Which of Charles siblings would Charles be more vindictive towards, I have a hunch it will be towards the Wessex's family.:ohmy:
 
That's my worry with Charles as king, because I do tend to think Charles is Jealous of his siblings. I do think he might be vindicitive towards them, which will cause a massive scandal.

Kezza what do you base your thoughts on? It just never occurred to me that Charles would be jealous of Anne, Andrew and Edward
 
That's my worry with Charles as king, because I do tend to think Charles is Jealous of his siblings. I do think he might be vindicitive towards them, which will cause a massive scandal.

I think Charles is his own worst enemy at times.

Which of Charles siblings would Charles be more vindictive towards, I have a hunch it will be towards the Wessex's family.:ohmy:

Even if you're right: what can he do to them? HM will make provisions in her will for all her children and in public life Charles is bound by the rules. But somehow I at least don't see him as vindictive at all.
 
Kezza what do you base your thoughts on? It just never occurred to me that Charles would be jealous of Anne, Andrew and Edward
I get the feeling at times he is a bit jealous of them because the three of them to some extent get more loving attention from either The Queen or Prince Phillip in some way. I don't think Charles has ever had the same level of closeness to his parents, than what his younger siblings have had. Maybe some of that has been down to him.

For Example I think the Queen is closer to Andrew and Edward and Prince Phillip's favourite child is Anne and Favourite son is Edward.

That's just a feeling I get, but I could be wrong.:lol:
 
I get the feeling at times he is a bit jealous of them because the three of them to some extent get more loving attention from either The Queen or Prince Phillip in some way. I don't think Charles has ever had the same level of closeness to his parents, than what his younger siblings have had. Maybe some of that has been down to him.

For Example I think the Queen is closer to Andrew and Edward and Prince Phillip's favourite child is Anne and Favourite son is Edward.

That's just a feeling I get, but I could be wrong.:lol:

Yes, maybe, but he is close to 60 now and has a loving family of his own, so I doubt he worries about such things, as they to a degree happen in all families.As he is the heir it could well be that it's the other way round...

Maybe he feels he had been treated harsher than the others but then he must see there was a reason behind it. And his choice of darling wife (the second, of course!) tells me a lot about who he regarded as his real mother, which was the Queen Mum. IMHO, of course.
 
I think part of Charles' apperance of being vidicitive to his siblings is the fault of his staff. I rememeber that after the whole Ardent TV filming Prince Willaim at Uni fiasco that it was reported that Charles aides had briefied the media against Ed and Sophie.

I just feel that Charles likes being centre of attention and thus when he ebcomes King will want all the attention upon him, CAmilla, HArry and William. Thus we would probably like his siblings to stop performing, at least so many, public engagements. Whilst doing this to Ed and Andy might not be so controversial i think telling Ann to stop would be seen as simply petty, she's worked so hard for so long that she has earned the right to do as she pleases.

Can you just imagine Anne still working when Charles is King? I mean you'd have "Queen" Camilla performing a few engagements a month and the King's sister performing 600+ a year. I don't think Charles will let that sisutation happen, so the only answer is to get Ann to drop her engagements.

Here are some links to some stories:

Knives out for spin doctor as royals feud | UK news | The Observer
Has the puppet-master of St James's finally pulled one string too many? - Telegraph
It was me what spun it | UK news | The Guardian
Revealed: the vicious feud behind that Charles row | the Daily Mail
Philip turns on Wills in TV row | the Daily Mail
 
Last edited:
I doubt Prince Charles can do anything to stop Princess Anne and he won't do. Princess Anne is very much her own person and even in their childhood it was Princess Anne who play the leader role. Prince Charles will not and will be not able to put any pressure on Princess Anne. I am quite sure about this.

Basically I don't see the problems of his siblings keeping their works in Charles' reign. It is about the royal family's integrated valuation and I don't see Prince Charles to change that. He may be not happy about the way he was/is treated by his parents but I don't think he would do anything to jepodise the stablilty of the monarchy and damage the image of the monarchy.

Even the royal silbings rivals are always there in private, there will be public peace among them.
 
Last edited:
I think Charles and Anne are quite close. I can't see there being any rivalry there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom