plans to boost public funding of the monarchy by 45% from 2025.

fez said:
I imagine there would be very very expensive legal battles over it and in the end some law firm in London would own it all. I don't know honestly. There may be provision for this somewhere in law or the agreement over it all.

In this day and age though you cannot just seize assets because you don't like someone as many in this thread seem to be suggesting.
Click to expand...
Parliament can simply legislate for it at the same time they are legislating for abolishing the monarchy and our new Republic - the assets belong to the ruling monarch, as head of state. Now we don't have a ruling monarch anymore, the assets will belong to the state directly.
 
Last edited:
FoxEye said:
Genuine question. If the Monarchy was abolished tomorrow, what would happen to this Crown Estate? Including the 2% of Cornwall gifted to whomever happens to the Prince of Wales at the time.
Click to expand...

I don't know how anyone else would do it, but if you elect me to implement republicanism I would change how the monarchy works in the first place to put a republic friendly figure to act in right of the crown (in a legal capacity only) on a temporary basis who would just hand the crown's possessions over to the government. The government would then fold this into an independent blind trust to act as a sovereign wealth fund.
 
StriderX said:
How about we pay nothing and privatise them like everything else, why are the Royals immune to this treatment of selling the family...silver.
Click to expand...

Are you actually a UK tax payer?

You have always refused to say what you do for a living, so it's only natural I have my doubts as to how much YOU actually contribute...It would be extremely disingenuous to use the word "we" when you really mean others. Like me...
 
fez said:
You can argue that they shouldn't exist but they do and due to the laws of our country you can't just strip people of assets that they own because you don't like it.
Click to expand...
tyke_ said:
Who's suggesting strip them of assets that they own? I haven't. I just prefer it if they went their own way, stop being funded by the taxpayer and lived off their own means and earning, you know, like everyone else does.
Click to expand...
fez said:
This is the very part that I don’t understand what you are saying. They are not funded in any way shape or form by the tax payer.[...]
Click to expand...

By taxpayers he should perhaps have said "the state" but it's certainly not stripping them of assets they own as private individuals.
 
FoxEye said:
Genuine question. If the Monarchy was abolished tomorrow, what would happen to this Crown Estate? Including the 2% of Cornwall gifted to whomever happens to the Prince of Wales at the time.
Click to expand...

Those are separate things, the Crown Estate is owned by the Crown, (so essentially the state), if we abolish the crown then the Crown Estate just becomes assets owned by the Republic... change the name to the Republic estate if you like.

The land in Cornwall is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall in order to provide an income to the Prince of Wales's household (likewise the Duchy of Lancaster does the same thing for the King or Queen), I doubt they'd be kept either as they're not privately owned assets and there would be no more King or Queen or Prince of Wales.

Private assets like the Sandringham Estate and Balmoral Estate, the stock market investments, private artworks (not the Royal Collection though) etc... do belong to the King as a private individual (or are held by private trusts for use by him and his heirs as private individuals) and those things couldn't simply be taken.

fez said:
I imagine there would be very very expensive legal battles over it and in the end some law firm in London would own it all. I don't know honestly. There may be provision for this somewhere in law or the agreement over it all.

In this day and age though you cannot just seize assets because you don't like someone as many in this thread seem to be suggesting.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't be seizing assets unless you say went after Balmoral and Sandringham etc..

This isn't anything new, the crown is separate in each commonwealth nation where the monarch is head of state.

If you go sailing in the British Virgin Islands for example you can go visit Richard Branson's private island uninvited... sort of, he owns the island but the land up to the high tide mark belongs to "the crown", not the British Crown but the British Virgin Islands crown.

Similarly, the King is separately King of Canada, King of Australia etc. and you can speak of things owned by "the crown" there. At some point in the future, those countries may decide to abolish the monarchy, Barbados did in 2002 for example.

In your imagination, you envisage very expensive legal battles re: crown assets but in reality, for example, land in Barbados to the high tide mark belonged to the (Barbados) crown... after 2002 it still belongs to the Barbados state but now it's a republic.

The Queen didn't go to court and try to claim it was her private property because it wasn't her private property, it was property belonging to the crown (of Barbados) the very thing they'd just voted to replace with a republic.
 
Last edited:
tyke_ said:
I could say you were wrong. I've seen more than just al jazeera state similar claims.
Click to expand...

My explanation was obviously too complex; here's a simple graphic:

Bevi38e.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom