What would happen if the Britain became a republic?

This is what you bother to think about?

Yes, r1. It's inevitable given the racial, social, and political changes occurring on that island. But besides reality, it's a fun question that I'm sure many DL members would be experts on.

[quote]in a post-monarchy UK, while the royals would still have a private wealth in the multi-millions – thanks in part to their extensive property portfolio – all profits generated by the Crown Estate would be handed over to the people.

[quote]Currently, the Queen pays an 85 percent tax on earnings generated through the Crown Estate – a huge property and land portfolio, including Regent Street and Buckingham Palace, worth about £12 billion – with the remaining 15 percent going to her to pay for stuff like royal travel and Palace garden parties. According to Murphy, this 15 percent going to the people instead wouldn't do much to correct social and economic imbalances.

[quote]This year that 15 percent worked out at nearly £43 million, which is admittedly just a fraction of the £1 billion the NHS spends every three days, but, you know, every little helps. And what of Buckingham Palace, which – as part of the Crown Estate – would also theoretically be handed over?

[quote]"The 750 barely used rooms in the Palace would hopefully become a huge central community hub, or a museum, or a centre for education, or a hub for democracy," says de Keyser.

Dibs on the purple tiara.

"It's inevitable given the racial, social, and political changes occurring on that island."

And this affects you how, r2?

It isn't inevitable, either.

Ok r5, but there is no need to get your underwear in a bunch. If you don't want to engage in this topic move on to another thread.

The term “Crown” refers to assets that belong to the state, not the family.

Can you imagine the lawsuit over the Crown Estates? Could go on for years. And Years. And Years.

Who pissed on your Cheerios this morning, r1/r5?

Elizabeth personally owns Balmoral and Sandringham, so if the royal family lost their status they would still have those properties.

No lawsuits. Crown assets belong to the state. Period.

[quote] there is no need to get your underwear in a bunch. If you don't want to engage in this topic move on to another thread.

Criticizing inane threads about the British Royal Family is one of the joys of being a Datalounger. If you can't take it, fuck off to Celebitchy!

There would be a massive grease fire and all of the windows would perish in it

The institution of the monarchy is so deeply ingrained in the UK Government and Administrative System it's almost impossible to unwind it all. What would be the point anyway OP? The system of government would not change. It's not as if the RF have any power. Boris Johnson would still be PM. Why the obsession?

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

r9, no one pissed in my cereal, but I did fuck your mother. She's an excellent whore.

Just appealing to you on your level.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown on just how much money the BRF generates for the country drawing in tourists every year.People want to see royal palaces and royal pomp,they could care less about some 15th century pub or plague victims graveyards.I like those things,but 90% of tourists probably wouldnt.

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

But France and other European countries have palaces, and sometime's a roayl families, their tourism is just fine. The British are popular because the court's language is English, so the United States, as the leader of pop culture int he 20th century, held them up as The standard of royalty. They also had an empire, I mean Common Wealth, to spread their PR around the world.

I don't think the family is all that important.

If it were to happen after the Queen's death, would Prince William and the rest keep their Dukedoms? Would they remove all nobility form the country?

[quote]No lawsuits. Crown assets belong to the state. Period.

Yes, if you dropped the Royal Family then all the profits of he Crown estate would belong to the state. Currently a portion of the profits are used to finance the royal family, but it is quite clear that the crown estate belongs to the government, not the Royal Family.

Britain had a republic and the leader of said republic was Oliver Cromwell.. He was king in all but name only. He kept the palaces and all the other royal sort of rubbish. So much for British Republicanism......

[quote] No lawsuits. Crown assets belong to the state. Period.

It's not at all that straight forward. The CE were turned over to be managed by the state with the guarantee that the RF receive a portion of the profits. The profit arrangement has been renegotiated over the years but the consideration aspects of the deal still stand. The CE has autonomy but if they were to reneg on the payments then any court would have to hear the case. Any first year law student understands "consideration" in respects to contract law.

What is "CE"?

CE = Crown Estate

r22 the State would probably win that court battle, one way or another. The Crown Estate was not owned by the individual sovereign but the Crown. The State's Crown Jewels are Elizabeth's. as monarch, but she herself doesn't own them and can't sell them. I assume the CE is the same. The deal only works as long as there is a monarch. If someone isn't a monarch then they don't have a claim to the CE.

I wonder how the CE was purchased and if there is any way to distinguish between the personal and private funds of a monarch. If the family owns the CE, can they lay claim to the State jewels, Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace? I say no.

[quote]The deal only works as long as there is a monarch. If someone isn't a monarch then they don't have a claim to the CE.

Exactly, in the event that Britain no longer recognizes a monarchy, then what on earth would be the claim?

R1/R5, one of the "royals," desperately hoping this never comes to pass , cause God forbid, he'd have to work for a living, and you know none of these idiots has any marketable skill other than being a walking tourist attraction.

The counter person at MickeyD's has as much talent and marketable skills as the average Windsor clan member.

r27 you can't really blame them for being lazy. If you woke up and someone told you that by birth you never have to work a real job, you'd probably limit your ambitions as well.

r27 is exactly right.

Even if they were made private citizens and completely cut off from state funds, they would still be considered a wealthy family. Might ruin the fantasy, but Harry wouldn't be in the poor house I am afraid.

The original CE was property personally owned by George lll. He made the deal with the State for them to manage it, give him (and subsequent monarchs) a portion of the profits and have them fund the state bureaucracy and defense.

Everytime a new monarch takes the throne the deal is renewed. The only things that have changed is how the money is paid to the RF (and the portfolios worth.). Use to be the Civil List . Now it's a flat percentage.

If the monarchy were to be abolished than who gets the portfolio? The RF has every right to reclaim the portfolio. That's called consideration in contract law. I give you something and you give me something. If one part of the deal falls through the other part has to be returned.

The CE is not owned by the State, its managed by the State (through a corporate structure).

Thank you r31, i wasn't aware of the history. Sounds like a terrible deal from the RF's point of view.

Slightly off topic ... but when I was in London I noticed that there were certain government agencies that had titles like "Her Majesty's Passport Office." I kept thinking how inefficient and wasteful it must be when they have to change that from "Her" to "His" (assuming there is a monarch who uses those pronouns!) Granted, there hasn't been a king in a very long time, but it's obviously possible that it would switch back and forth.

[quote]Sounds like a terrible deal from the RF's point of view.

It's not like they have much of a choice. By acquiescing to what Parliament wants is how the Royal Family remained an institution. They realized it is better to exist in a way Parliament is okay with, than to not exist at all.

Not really.

In the 18th century, before the CE arrangement the national debt, the civil government, and defense paid for was for by the monarch from the profits from their estates and supplemented by taxes raised by Parliament. George III knew he couldn't juggle all those balls so he cut the deal.

The portfolio is now worth 14.1 billion. Real estate holdings mostly. Shore and mineral rights as well just like they were in the 18th century. The past 70 years been very good for the portfolio.

Take a deep look at Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, they don't fare much better than Charles or William. So I don't think the UK will become a republic in another generation. Even if it is to become a republic, the revolution won't be that brutal and severe like that of France. Unless, of course, they got some people like Harry and Meghan on the throne.

"Even if it is to become a republic, the revolution won't be that brutal and severe like that of France."

Oh dear--r36. There won't be a revolution, and no, the citizens won't cut the Royals' heads off.

It would be a simple transition of power. If the monarch is smart, they will veto the measure. I'm sure how they constitutionally get around a royal veto, but it would all be a legal rather than physical affair.

The "Sparkle Trolls" would lose their zest for life and off themselves. Same for the ones who worship Royals and think they're akin to supernatural beings.

"Even if it is to become a republic, the revolution won't be that brutal and severe like that of France."

So, in other words, no Broadway musical with power ballads?

Diana used to talk about this very topic. It didn’t go over well.

Markle is hoping it doesn’t. The renovations aren’t done yet.

So does the British government pay for the crowning ceremony and the Prince of Wales ceremony? Or does that come from the CE?

Could they get a job as the Royal Family of some other country?

Or just start a theme park where we could go and meet them?

[quote]Could they get a job as the Royal Family of some other country? Or just start a theme park where we could go and meet them?

Nothing that common. They would make the rounds of talk shows, the lecture circuit and be hired to give inspirational speeches at company events. Maybe lesser royals like Harry would be on a game show like "Dancing With The Stars." Camilla would definitely be forced on to "The Biggest Loser." Ina Garten would probably have Charles on to talk about vegetables. She'd drop her gays in a New York minute to be surrounded by royals.

What would Kate do r45, you forgot Kate.

They would do the same things as the Royal families of Russia, the various 19th century German aristocracy and Royals; the defunct Kings of Italy and their 19th century Italian city-state Royals, Royals of Greece; and the other lesser desirable Eastern European Royals of Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria.

They would troll the most exotic resorts of the world, got to parties, try to marry into other Western Royal families, hit up Prince Karl of Sweden, that kind of thing. Every one of them.

Depends who's PM when it happens. I could see the family waking away with essentially everything except Buckingham Palace (too visible and prominent to allow them to keep it). The British are too squeamish about dramatic change. Yes, a republic is a huge change, but it'll be fashioned in a way to make it a gradual change — e.g., allowing them to retain titles and property, multiphase elimination of head of state duties and ultimately position as head of state.

Agreed with the commenter saying that how things turn out once Queen Elizabeth passes will depend greatly on which political party is in power at the time.

[quote]I could see the family waking away with essentially everything except Buckingham Palace (too visible and prominent to allow them to keep it)

No one would want it! The Royal Family hates Buckingham Palace.

What would happen with the Duchy of Cornwall, the holdings that provide income to the Prince of Wales? (And only Princes. A Princess of Wales can never be Duchess of Cornwall in her own right.)

5-10 years phase-out process. They'll keep everything except the head of state role because the political establishment is ultimately conservative and will see royal property as private property — not the people's. The law, the establishment will say, provides no means of taking royal property and therefore it must remain the family's. Everyone outside the establishment will grumble but it'll die down and most will just acquiesce.

They'll walk away billionaires. They'll "donate" Buckingham Palace to the people and thereby will never have to pay taxes.

That's how change that's aimed at egalitarian outcomes tend to turn out In developed democracies: the rich are left with barely less than they had before.

I’ll go out on a limb, but I would bet that absolutely every estate and item in every estate and warehouse that is associated with the BRF, is clearly identified as to “ownership”.

I’m sure it’s complicated. Things on loan from the BRF to the government and vice-versa, and such. Things with shared ownership. Things owned by the nation but with much sentimental value to the Royals that they’d want to buy them back, or trade. Who owns the letter Henry VIII received from the Pope about his proposed annulment? Personal papers of State, given to and filed by the Sovereign for 400+ years?

Don’t forget that Britain is full of aristocracy that still own large estates all over. I heard that the taxes implemented to support WWI and since have thinned the ranks of the idle rich, but there are still tons of them. (Think Downton Abbey, where they didn’t own the nearby town, but felt that they did, and they did employ seemingly much of the townsfolk.) So, a deposed Royal family will need to adjust, but will still be among the wealthiest family on Earth.

A split might take longer than Brexit, but they’ll be able to do it.

One thing I guarantee, is it will be done with great attention as to what is legal. The Republicans won’t go on raiding parties to take rugs and steel rare paintings, that’s for sure.

R31, You are correct. The money the family earns is part of the consideration of the deal their ancestor made. If the terms of the deal are not maintained, the Royal family would have the legal right to take everything back which would make them the richest family on Earth by far. Also, much if the Queen's Jewelry was inherited including the two massive diamonds that Her Majesty refers to as "Granny's Chips", two of the largest and most perfect diamonds in the world. Also, the Queen's personal art collection is worth well into the Billions. They are brilliant at understating their personal net worth.

Please, Britain can't even solve Brexit, much less become a republic. Royalty isn't going anywhere anytime remotely soon.

Dont give a shit what happens to them, but I will gleefully pillage her cape collection if it turns into a Romanov situation.

I would also pillage some of the jewels and the art.

“Underwear in a bunch?” Oh please R5, this is GreatbBritain we’re talking about so talk English, the expression is “knockers on a twist..”

It's sort of interesting (and odd) that a German noble family somehow got imported to Britain in the 1714 and inherited all this property. Yes, George I's mother was a granddaughter of the Stuarts, but was herself mostly German. I'm guessing that George III looked at all the property, the thousands of servants needed to maintain all the residences (cooks, gardeners, housekeepers, gamekeepers, resident repairmen, stablemen, footmen, valets, butlers, chimney sweeps, etc) and realized that it was a better deal to have the state pay all of their salaries. I'm pretty sure that a court would look at a 250 year old contract and declare it null and void, because so many other circumstances had changed over the centuries, especially because Parliament has been paying the royal family the equivalent of about $20 million/year + for the past 250 years for that honor. (I'm pretty sure that the equivalent of $5 - $10 billion paid over 250 years would be adequate payment for the properties). But, yes, the only solution from a practical standpoint would be to sell the lands and estates and houses to institutions, or, rent them out for hefty prices.

If they really only get ~£43 million a year that really isn't much IMO compared to how much revenue they create each year for the tourist or media industry. France has palaces too. True. But they're basically just old, dusty, lifeless houses. The Brits simply love their RF and everything associated with it. I love that the British monarchy is so lively and people still live in those old houses and keep its rituals alive.

And who cares if members of the RF are lazy or have jobs? They basically live like zoo animals 24/7 and provide entertainment and gossip for their subjects. I'm also lazy but I wouldn't want to change with any of them. Not even for a day.

Just to make a few things perfectly clear; the monarch still owns all assets of Crown Estates. Only thing is a corporation has been set up to manage said assets freeing the sovereign from having to bother. Crown Estate Commissioners execute powers of ownership over said assets, but they do not in fact hold ownership, the monarch does.

Funds from CE go to funding the civil government, and in return HM, her/his consort and certain members of RF receive funds.

When George III came to the throne amount of property held by CE was rather small. It has been under careful management that it has grown over several hundred years.

More:

Anyone who has read "Importance of Being Earnest", watched enough PBS/British television or otherwise bothered to learn historically wealth in England came from land. This was true of monarchs and nobility.

Prior to George III English monarchs paid certain expenses out of their own purse (income from lands or whatever else), this was in addition to what came out of taxes collected by treasury. Elizabeth I famously refused to pay the military who participated in the fleet that defeated Spanish Armada. HM simply said she didn't have the money.

Besides the obvious expenses incurred from all those royal homes, monarchs also had to pay members of their court. Holding offices at court was one of the few paying jobs nobility could hold (it wasn't considered work or being in trade), so people were keen to get positions at court.

Monarch not only had to pay all those ladies and gentlemen at court, but their room and board as well (they all ate/drank at the monarch's expense). Their own ladies and gentlemen of nobility at court (you didn't think a duchess or duke undressed or bathed themselves did you?) were also housed/fed at the monarch's expense. as well.

This pretty much breaks down what the RF costs versus finances and revenue from Crown Estate.

[quote]the monarch still owns all assets of Crown Estates

No, a legal entity known as "The Crown" owns all the crown estate. The individual monarch does not own it in their name.

It's an important distinction.

No it isn't, r57, It's knickers in a twist.

It will be a gradual phase-out when it happens, probably after Charles passes. William will get to keep Sandringham and Balmoral and he will be allowed to live in Kensington Palace for the duration. It's more about the Duchy of Cornwall and the question of who gets to keep its 17 million pounds a year income stream that's going to be contentious.

It won't happen in the next fifty years at least.

It would be impossible for the UK to become a republic. The whole system of government depends on the monarchy and its authority.

R67, I mean wouldn't you just replace the monarch with an elected head of state? Or a president selected by parliament, as in the EU, Italy, etc.?

I don't see it, either. Brits love their traditions. It keeps them "special" over the rest of the plebeian world.

The Crown Estate doesn't "own" the portfolio. They "hold" it and manage it on behalf of the current monarch. It's a singular legal and financial instrument. There's no other like it. This is why people get confused about it. It doesn't conform to the concept of ownership.

Some of the assets in it date back to the Norman Conquest. Its value was at a serious low point during WWII when rationing and government agricultural management was in effect because of the war effort. One of its assets is the right to salmon fish in certain river systems in Scotland. It controls half the foreshore in all of Great Britain. There are mineral and mining rights in the portfolio.

Again it gets renewed every time a new monarch comes to the throne. No court is going to dissolve it willy nilly, just because. There's a serious lack of understanding about the law exhibited in some of these posts.

"There's a serious lack of understanding about the law exhibited in some of these posts."

Maybe that's because it's all so pointless and arcane, r70?

The last time we were a republic they abolished Christmas.

We'd only have to pay for an 'Elected King' (President) to replace them anyhow, they'd probably end up being as corrupt as Trump.

The law in general. The Crown Estate isn't a law. Yes, it's a legal instrument, but it's not "the law."

This is the OP, I just want to thank so many of you for engaging in this topic. I 've learned a lot, and have even more questions, based on your posts. I hail from the Colonies so I was generally interested in this question, plus it gave me a break from thinking about He Who Should Not Be Named.

R67

I wonder if you realize what you have written.

France, Russia, Italy, Germany, and Austria (to name a few) all got shot of their monarchies, and replaced sovereigns with some sort of representative government. You also realize since the Stuarts were restored British monarchs rule (or reign) by Grace of God and Consent of the People. That last bit means Parliament.

It was Parliament who got rid of the Stuarts and settled the throne on Electress Sophia and legal heirs of her body. Parliament if it chose could send the Windsors (or Windsor-Mountbatten) family packing and call anyone else to the throne, or just get rid of monarchy all together. Again it would have to involve express will of the people, but just look how well Brexit is going.

George V (and much of his government) was worried enough about a rise in republican feelings taking hold in GB that HM changed his family's surname, kicked various German members of the RF down into the peerage, oh and most of all denied his cousin Nicholas II, his wife and family asylum in England or any British territory/colony

GB doesn't have a written constitution per se; (well aside from the Magna Carta if you want to go down that road), so there is nothing seriously written in law or whatever that states the UK *must* have a monarch.

[quote]France, Russia, Italy, Germany, and Austria (to name a few) all got shot of their monarchies, and replaced sovereigns with some sort of representative government.

In all of those cases it was due to revolution or military defeat that removed the old government and allowed a new government to fill the vacuum. The United Kingdom is not going to cease its existing government to allow a new form of government to be created.

Why not?

There does not have to be a coup, revolution or any thing of sort. Again using Brexit as an example it would require nothing more than the people exercising their will. Motions/bills go through Parliament, then out to a referendum, votes tallied and there you are.

Will give you the whole thing would be rather messy; which is probably why the Crown is quite safe for now.

The real messy part is that the Kings of England "acquired" their land by claiming the Divine Right of Kings. That's right, GOD chose them and their descendants to be kings and gave them special abilities and wisdom to do so. In 1250 AD the king of England nominally owned every square mile of England and "graciously" allowed powerful lords to claim certain lands as their own. (The feudal system). They were, of course, to swear allegiance to him in return. Even today, the legal entity known as the "Crown" in theory owns every bit of land in Great Britain and could demand it back under the conditions listed below.

"A deed in Britain gives an "owner" reasonably exclusive rights, mostly to access and so on. This "right" can be bought and sold. However, if the Crown wants that land back, it can get it. But, there are laws in place that restrict this - the owner must be fairly compensated, and so on."

Or to quote another source:

"This is an interesting point of English law (Scotland has a separate legal system so that is the correct term). Technically the Queen, in her legal capacity as "the Crown", owns the whole of the United Kingdom, and legally a "freehold estate" (which is the basis on which most houses are bought and sold in England), or an "estate in fee simple" which is the correct legal term, is not absolute ownership of the land but only a right to act as if you DO absolutely own it. "Simple" in this respect means "without restriction".

I think we can all understand that this concept is utterly ridiculous in the year 2019. If any legal entity were to claim ownership of all the land, it would need to be on that represented all the people, namely Parliament, but of course that body doesn't assert this right, because then people might object to paying property or other taxes on land they don't really own. In practical terms, there would be a revolution in Britain in a heartbeat if the "Crown" suddenly demanded the entirety of the lands be returned to it.

I suppose, in theory, that the US would claim ownership of all land otherwise not owned, and I think when a landowner dies without any designated heir, some municipality or governmental body can take that land, but otherwise, in the US, deeded land is final - although the US and governmental entities sometimes claim eminent domain to build a highway or other thing deemed essential for the bulk of the citizens. but according to the 5th amendment, just compensation must be given for the taking.

I'd imagine that the absolute freehold would be retained by any government whether we had a Monarchy or not.

The UK government frequently uses 'Compulsory Purchase' in order to provide infrastructure changes (HS2/Crossrail) or simply to redevelop a town/city. in exactly the way the US government does.

It won't happen in the next 100 years, but I bet it happens eventually.

The movement for a republic needs a new logo.

"But it's good for tourism."

Not hugely...

As The Onion once said about the UK, "barreling into the 19th century!" If anyone thinks the Royal Family is going to, as Christopher Hitchens once said, "pack up its tents and go," they're deluded. Maybe it will happen in 100 years. Maybe. If the agonizing over Brexit is any indication, it will take a hundred years just to hear the arguments over it.

A big part of the equation is how Charles turns out to be as king. If he follows his mother‘s footsteps and keeps his mouth shut and stays out of politics then the BRF should hold onto its position for a long time more.

However if Charles can’t help himself and starts meddling in government policy (as he has in the past), those behaviors will be the end of the monarchy. People want a positive image when comes to the monarchy; what they don’t want is a meddling king.

Even Sweden can't rid of theirs, despite it being official government policy, so I doubt the British monarchy is going anywhere any time soon.

It may happen in the next few decades if somehow it becomes a viral thing everyone latches onto. A huge trend. That might take some kind of catalyst. Bad behavior. Prince Andrew and Epstein?

They would keep nothing more than what they currently own privately. Sandringham and Balmoral are the 2 large estates QEII owns privately. If it should happen I would imagine Prince Harry and Meghan would have to leave Frogmore Cottage since the Queen does not own Windsor Castle or its outlying parcels. And Prince Andrew would have to leave Royal Lodge (also located in Windsor Great park) or pay a hell of a lot more than he's paying now. In fact, most everyone currently enjoying a grace & favour residence would probably have to move out unless the government agreed to continue allowing them to live in their current abodes (at market rate of course).

If Corbyn somehow became a very, very popular PM, he could use a lot of his political capital to move forward with a referendum. If the economy sucks when he takes power (so that it can't be easily pinned on him), republicans could use the uncertainty to encourage an upswell of "change" in the form of abolishing the monarchy. Add in some racial and religious issues ("they don't represent ME"), and it could happen.

1/1000 chance in the next decade, however.

The only Royal who should be paid should be the reigning Monarch. The rest of them (and all the other Royal hangers-on) who get some sort of dole from the government (be it money or a residence) should be cut off.

I like their vision for a nonpolitical constitutional/ceremonial/referee president (EU, Germany, Italy, Israel, etc.), retaining parliamentary democracy.

Andrews lease on Royal lodge is totally legal and paid for, any 'republican' government would be stuck with him until about 2078. The Earl of Wessex has a 150 year lease on Bagshot Park which doesn't expire until 2150 ish.

[quote]That's right, GOD chose them and their descendants to be kings and gave them special abilities and wisdom to do so.

There's not much evidence to refute that belief, at least for the part of being chosen.

R92, what's your IQ? LOL

The current lot were chosen by Parliament not God because they weren't Catholic.

King George 1st's Mother, Sophia The Electress of Hanover was a very long way from the direct line of succession but she was Protestant so she won.

Prince Andrew is going to be ‘retired’ from public duties the instant that Charles becomes king. Charles probably has the press release already written up and ready to go.

R78

There was more to the feudal system than that.

While much of what you said is technically true, other main purpose of feudalism was it provided a source of men for monarch's army, and means to feed that military.

This later evolved into the system peerage that most are familiar with today in some form.

Being a duke, earl, or whatever is all very well, as was having all that land, but it brought with it certain responsibilities to Crown. Nobles in UK just like other parts of Europe historically were expected to kick upstairs (known as tributes) a portion of revenue from their lands, crops, etc.... They also were expected to field men for military.

Those who follow period dramas such as Downton Abbey and read up on things know the above often had disastrous consequences. Not just the "lord" or maybe his sons went to war, but many of men on the estate/lands held by said peer. This included various servants who went along to serve their master (who would have been an officer), with result often being (and was for WWI) slaughter for all. Entire estates not only lost sons of peers, but entire families on estates lost husbands, sons, and other men leaving huge gaping holes in demographics.

Finally other reason for giving peers all that land is those great estates functioned as "hotels" for the monarch and his/her court when ever they made progressions or otherwise traveled within their realm.

There is a great line in film Orlando where bowing to Elizabeth I, welcoming HM to his home Orlando tells the queen "all that I have is yours". HM replies "all that you call yours is mine already".

Peers were expected to house, feed, entertain and otherwise provide for monarch (and or members of RF) totally out of their own pocket for how ever long they chose to remain. That is one of reasons they were given all those lands and allowed to amass wealth.

Keep in mind this not only included monarch, his/her consort and their courts; but servants, guards, and everything else that came along including stabling the horses.

Cannot recall if it was during Victoria's reign or Elizabeth's but one peer organized a huge and lavish stay for the monarch, turning his estates into a show place including amusements. When HM and the court departed in shortly afterwards the peer declared himself bankrupt, and sold up everything. He had literally spent himself into the poor house entertaining his sovereign.

What happened to the great estates of UK.

Two things did in many families; high taxes post WWI, and end of fee entail.

Noel Coward explains things rather well.

[quote]The current lot were chosen by Parliament not God because they weren't Catholic.

In that way God's will was realized.

Removing the monarchy would open up many cans of worms on various fronts.

With no monarchy you don't need a nobility, but upper house in Parliament (the Lords) is based on peers. And while hereditary peers have seen their roles diminished over course of decades, they still are around, and you have all those life peers as well.

Turning Britain's upper house into senate as was done by France and other former monarchies would be messy, but doable. However since all those peers of the realm were granted various rights by letters patent, am not sure if legally such things could be reversed or annulled.

France, Russia and other countries that got shot of monarchies by revolution did just that; While Germany simply removed the various privileges and make the titles part of a person's name. In any event the various dukes, earls, viscounts, marquesses and barons are likely not going down without a fight.

Here’s a thought: if the UK declared itself a Republic and repudiated the Royal family, Liz would still remain Queen of approximately 32 other countries, crown dependencies, and other oddballs. Each would have to repudiate the royals independently.

Becore Victoria ascended the UK throne, the British King was also the King of a Hanover, Germany. But Hanover had a different succession tradition than the UK. They did not allow for a female sovereign. So, they grabbed the closest male relative of the recently dead King, and made him King, in lieu of Victoria. I bet that made an impression on subsequent family gatherings!

Not too sure she'd have given a shit, she was The Queen Empress of a quarter of the World by her death.

R101

Hanover was governed by Salic law which prevented females ascending to throne. As it became clearer Princess Victoria was not just heir presumptive, but apparent as well, things moved along predictiable royal lines.

No one "nabbed" anyone. William IV had no surviving legal issue from his queen Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen (though there were plenty of backstairs by blows), so the throne passed to Princess Victoria (next in line as her father Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn was dead).

Duke of Kent was the fourth son of George III, his younger brother, Ernest Augustus was fifth son. Had d. of Kent lived to inherit he would have been both king of England and Hanover. Since that didn't happen *and* Salic law prevented pss. Victoria from throne of Hanover, it went to next male in line, the fifth son of George III, Ernest Augustus. The remaining living sons of George III (the various younger dukes lower than Ernest Augustus), all refused to challenge their elder brother's right to inherit (though many in Hanover would have welcomed such a move), so that was that.

However yes, there was some bad blood between QV and King of Hanover. The Duchess of Kent (QV's mother) never got on with her BIL (Ernest Augustus), and HM continued those hard feelings.

In particular was the issue of Queen Charlotte's jewels, which Ernst of Hanover believed belonged to him, while QV thought otherwise and refused to turn them over. In fact HM wore the jewels every chance she got to rub the king of Hanover's nose in it. Would take intervention by the courts (in a case that made Jarndyce v Jarndyce" look like a traffic ticket hearing, Ernst finally got the jewels.

Prince Albert and then Prince Ernst (later king) didn't get on either, which only added more fuel to fire. Ernst believed he should have been king of GB, and felt Prince Albert was in impudent young pup.

That other Ernst of Hanover is just as much a piece of work as his distant relation.

Any pictures of Queen Charlotte’s jewels?

You'll have to scour the internet or books.

QV didn't hand over all of the Hanover jewels to her uncle after losing that court case. Thus a few pieces still remain within HM's jewel collection.

Several pieces were sold off after Queen Charlotte's death (eventually) as per terms of her final will and testament.

Furthermore;

Ever shrewd, and quite frankly the spoiled brat she was, QV wasn't going to be beaten easily. HM summoned court jewelers who were instructed to make copies of the pieces QV liked most before they were sent to Hanover.

So all the money the Queen has sequestered in offshore accounts (as revealed by the Panama Papers) is her own money?

And the billion dollar artwork contained in vaults in BP is personally owned by the Queen and not the Crown Estate? So after she passes, her family inherit this artwork and can do what they see fit with it, including selling it for private profit?

R108

Matter is complicated as ownership varies. See link below.

There was some.movie I saw where an art expert was removing a painting from Buckingham Palace wall to bring it for restoration. While he was Scrutinizing the painting, the Queen entered the room, unknown to him. Eventually she asks him “where are you going with my painting”. It was a cute expression, as if she were a normal person with three works of art; instead of hundred of thousands of pieces and a team of art experts.

They say she is known to run around turning the lights off as if she were a pensioner is a small cottage.

I give the queen credit for modestly residing in a damn palace and castle. Is there any extravagant thing that the Queen does?

R110

As a young lad Prince Charles lost a dog lead; upon informing HM he was instructed to go find the thing as "dog leads cost money".

R111 The Queen owns a lot of Racehorses.

She also spends quite a lot on clothes but is an expert at hiding the true cost. She employs Angela Kelly and three dressmakers full time. She can't really hide the cost of Hats (between £300 - £1000 each) or gloves (£100+ a pair).

Where's the latest Meghan thread?

I agree r113 that's extravagant, but she seems to be the main player in official events which require a certain look to honor the UK. When at home her clothes appear to be just plane grandma garb, so I'm give a pass for the clothing. 100 pound loves? I'd like to feel them! Thank you for answering. The horses are very extravagant so that counts.