I suspect they will just become more and more irrelevant until they either just decide to give it up. I don't think anyone can be bothered to abolish them tbh. At least not in the UK. I think Canada and Australia will become Republics, as well as a lot of other countries. They have respect for The Queen rather than the institution of the monarchy.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Yes, I think so, too.
I could also imagine George and his siblings not being interested in the succession, given that they have such a normal upbringing and there are other things to do in life.
I dont think royal family will be abolished they bring in too much money to the country through tourists.
I'm not sure it will be officially abolished, I think it'll just gradually become a smaller and smaller thing over the years. I'm 50:50 on whether George will ever be crowned king, I suspect William may change things so he has an option to turn it down or the three children share the role or something innovative.
But do they really? People would still come to visit the palaces whether they’re still going or not, right?
I think so, too, essentially Queen Victoria is still bringing money in, too!
All of the Royal buildings and traditions were already in there when TQ was crowned. I guess the news they generate make people think of Royalty and maybe inspire them to visit the buildings more? I don't know.
A good PR team for British tourism could maybe do the same?
True, but apart from BP and the Crown Jewels- who owns all the stuff? Lots of it might stay with them and all the profit would go into keeping it up or in their purse. Sorting all of it out would be a massive thing and they might get away with more than we can imagine. If I would be abolished I would take it all, lock it up and give them a big FU. Pulling all the exhibits from museums, blocking all the access on my land, all the trademarks that are in place….
And then I would sit in my jewels and slurp tea and G&T when the people realise they might live in a Republic but nothing else has changed……
No, a completely radical leader or party would have to be voted in for their to ever be a referendum on the subject, even Corbyn wouldn't have gone for it. In reality it will just shrink down to 4-5 senior members who get paid by the state
I completely forgot that they own everything.
It’s really unclear. Lawyers would probably fight for decades to de-tangle it all. What about the Dutchies for example. Not being the BRF doesn’t mean your a not holding a title. They would have to abolish peerage (and even then they cannot just take the land back just like that).
The whole thing has so many implications apart from that. Re-naming countries, positions, departments and ministries is f*****g expensive (because of course they all need new websites, signs, headers, business cards….). Changing the money, the passports, the hymn, maybe even football jerseys? And sadly, this does not necessarily create employment in the UK but might be sourced out to a country that does it cheaper. New political positions and the political workflows the monarch is involved in would be needed. Good luck by creating something smoothly. The companies that profit from being royal suppliers (because you can use it to promote your business). The charity patronages.
Honestly the only reason the family won't be abolished imo is because it has constitutional importance. A lot of the political processes depend on them playing a certain symbolic role and changing those would probably be a pain. Then you have the royal prerogatives that the government may be able to use and I don't think anyone can just dump them in the trash and move on, so the administrative job of codifying them would be a bit of a pain too (though they're increasingly being codified anyway from what I understand)
I totally recommend a read of “and what do you do?” By Norman Baker.
lays it all out there, the funding, the laws etc. Very interesting.
lays it all out there, the funding, the laws etc. Very interesting.
They don't. The Crown as an institution owns a lot of it. If The crown were to be abolished, it would revert back to the State. The only thing personally owned by them I think are Sandringham and Balmoral. Agree the Dutchies, where most of their money comes from may still be theirs. They are still loaded but the Crown owns most of the jewels etc. But I agree they will just be a small group. Gone are the days when people will turn up to see The Monarchs cousin do a visit. Most younger people don't care about them or know who they are.
Apparently charity Royal patronages don't have any real effect on the amount of money they raise, but they incur costs for the charity
https://giving-evidence.com/2020/07/16/royal-findings/
Last edited:
The Castle of Mey was the Queen Mother's private property, but I believe it now belongs to the Castle of Mey Trust - their website says Prince Charles rents the castle when he visits in August each year, he's president of the trust.
I've ordered this on my Kindle. Apparently the other European Royals have 2 Palaces whereas the BRF have about 15! I think this may be where the cutting back may be too ( or I hope so) We pay for the upkeep of all these places. I think they should be severely cut down to
Monarch, heir and dependent children, an official residence like Buck House and an official country residence. Everything else they should buy and maintain out of private funds. I don't think William is a reformer, or Kate. He is a Windsor through and through and will fight tooth and nail to keep the Monarchy going for as long as he can.
They would make money if they opened up the palaces like Versaille and whatever they bring in they pretty much take back.
I read the Norman Barker book and highly recommended it as he pretty much blows that argument out of the water
What counts as a palace? In London, there's Buckingham, Kensington and St James's; no one seems to live at Kew or Hampton Court any more. There's Windsor and Holyroodhouse. Sandringham and Balmoral are privately owned, as are Highgrove (the Waleses), Anmer (the Cambridges), Bagshot Park (the Wessexs) and Gatcombe (Princess Royal). We live in a country where the Prime Minister and other senior cabinet ministers each have their own official country residence too as well as London accommodation.
Historic Royal Palaces runs them and helps look after them now they aren’t in use but she still owns them. Her wealth via her property portfolio must be astronomical.
It’s a common myth, they don’t bring in tourists. Tourists come to see the houses, the jewels etc - very few actually come on the off chance of catching a glimpse of them. Chester Zoo, Botanic Gardens in Kew and the Tower of London have more visitors than Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace.
Look at France for example, they get tons of visitors to their royal heritage sites and they haven’t had a royal family for ages. No one goes to Versaillais and laments at the lack of King and Queen!
This is a bit tricky but something I find interesting! I can see them being hideously devious and hiding things. Especially Andrew. As for ownership of the big things, the Queen only owns it through her virtue as Monarch. When she leaves the throne, her successor will own it. So I would imagine that because they don’t privately own it, Buckingham Palace, the Crown Jewels etc will revert to ‘the people’ and become 100% historical landmarks. The places they own privately like Sandringham they will get to keep.
Last edited:
I can imagine quite a few Americans wanting to come over to see Prince Andrew!
What is owned by The Crown is different to what is owned personally by the monarch. George VI had to buy Balmoral and Sandringham off Edward VIII/the Duke of Windsor as they are not Crown properties, unlike the Palaces. The same goes for many of the jewels worn by the Queen and other RF members; they belong to The Crown and not to individuals. The Crown is more of the apparatus and holdings of a constitutional monarchy and its government; when I worked for a national police agency, the cars did not have tax discs because they were considered governmental, Crown property and on Crown duties, and thus exempt.
- Status