CLARIFICATION: In the video, we make a number of claims surrounding the Crown Estate and just how the monarch receives from the Crown Estate or the Government. We wish to clarify the following: The Crown Estate is not the property of the Royal Family nor the Monarch in their personal capacity. As the Crown Estate website (www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/our-business/our-structure-and-governance/) stresses "The assets of The Crown Estate are therefore not the property of the Government, nor are they the Sovereign's private estate. They are part of the hereditary possessions of the Sovereign "in right of the Crown". In more simple terms, the Crown Estate is owned by the monarch "by virtue of their accession to the throne" "for the duration of their reign". Think of it like the keys to an office - when you start a new job (in non-COVID times), you'll probably get your own set of keys. You "own" these keys by virtue of your employment for the duration of that employment. If you quit, or are fired, the keys are no longer yours. The calculation of the Sovereign Grant is a bit more complicated than what we explained in the video. The Royal Family doesn't immediately skim off 25% of that year's revenues or net profits. Rather the entirety of it is sent to the Treasury. The Treasury then, in accordance with the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, calculates and sends to the Crown the Sovereign Grant. Under Section 6 of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 (www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/15/section/6), the Sovereign Grant is calculated as follows: First, calculate 25% of the Crown Estate income for two years prior (i.e. when calculating the Sovereign Grant for 2021-22 use figures from the Crown Estate corresponding to 2019-20). Round that figure up to the nearest 100 grand. Then compare the rounded figure with the Sovereign Grant given last year. (After some adjustments), award the higher amount. In effect, the Sovereign Grant has a ratchet clause embedded in it - the Grant can only ever go up. Subsequently, say hypothetically due to a pandemic, the Crown Estate makes a loss that year. The Sovereign Grant will not suddenly become negative - the Treasury would have to stump up cash from elsewhere.
If that's the case, then wouldn't the crown estate become a sovereign estate of the republic in the event the monarchy were abolished? I don't know what UK republicans are arguing for exactly, but in a number of European states which made the switch, the estate previously considered a prerogative of the monarchy was confiscated and taken over by the state in order to serve public functions such as hosting ministeries or museums (France and Italy are good examples of this).
Glad you finally clarified this. I would just add one further point when people talk about abolishing the monarchy. Personally, I believe the Royals serve no useful function, and it is wrong for the Head of State to be a hereditary position. However, due to the nature of their status, it would be near impossible to get rid of them - at least via democratic means. When the late Paul Flynn MP tried to raise questions in Parliament about Prince Andrew's dodgy behaviour, he was cut off by the Speaker, less than a minute into his speech and told that "references to the Royals must be rare, brief, and respectful". And that's before MPs are reminded of their Oath of Allegiance. This is also why historically, the only way monarchs have been deposed is via major events - such as wars or revolutions.
That analogy is really wrong. Its nothing like they keys to an office, a closer more accurate analogy that less miss leading would be to equate it to a land trust. Your analogy alludes to the goverment ha ing some right to that land if the monarch was abolished which its dosnt I herently have, obviously this is something that would knly be resolved in a lengthy court dispute but as the land is tied to the crown and the crown is inherited, from a basic starting point the Royal family has the larger claim to its rights.
Russia tried too, and we had USSR, China tried, they had a fashist republik, broke up, had a large Civil war, and now thwy are communists, shamelessly grabbing the stuff they want
They didn't claim that France hadn't had a monarchy for 200 year (at least if you refering to the comment at 6:36) - they claimed that Versailles hadn't been home to royalty for 200 years which is true - the last king living in Versailles was Louis XVI (till October 1789) and all plans of later Kings / Emperors to return didn't come reality.
I mean, as a French i don't see why both titles and estade can't be claimed by the people. But you know, French way of dealing with monarchy could be a bit extreme
As a brit I 100% agree, crown estate is not the crowns private property, acting like it is is misleading. Just seize it and then have a net profit that can go to helping way more people than the few in the monarchy, put it back in the NHS.
Hey, the Brits were chopping up their monarchs a century before you got around to it. The fact that they changed their minds doesn't change the fact that they came up with the idea first.
The heads of state in France (Presidents, Prime Ministers) have hardly proved to be paragons of virtue, if recent news is to be believed ! Just because someone is elected doesn't mean they'll automatically be somehow better than an imposed monarchy.
what are garden party's? i always thought it was entertain foreign diplomat's, so we can do trade talks so we have better trade deals.. as kinda like talking clients out for a meal to put them in a good mood for a deal to be made.. am i wrong? o.O
Yes aka they can spend it on what they want maybe they will have enother wedding or kid for the tax payees to fund, they are the biggest scammers in the uk them royals, tbf it is mostly the government because the royals get royalitys from the government in the form of a sovereign grant, the government still has the tax payers money to do what the hell they want with it.
@Junaid they are not always just for potential business deals it can be for birthdays too it can be for whatever they want. Its not limited to business.
@@nadeemchaudhry6585 even if you do, I am curious about technicalities. eg, Alll MPs swore oath of allegiance to the Queen, even with Republican tendency like Jeremy Corbyn. Don't they broke their oath by legislating monarchy abolition?
That's kinda how I feel about the whole thing I live in amarica and my country has been on fire for 4 years so every once and awhile I look over at the other dumpster fire and watch
You need to do a video explaining to the Americans why Archie dosent have a title. Pretty obvious to us Brits but they seem to think it's because of racism.
Not to be rude but the people that video would be meant for wouldn't care... They'd just call TLDR racist. The "woke" liberals in my country have ripped the guts out of the word "racism", and use it for anything a white person disagrees with a black person about... For example, I don't like Megan Markel for any other reason then I think she's a dishonest, self important, entitled, brat... Nothing to do with the color of her skin, but I'm sure someone "woke" will see this and call me a racist.
Firstly, this matter shouldn't concern Americans. Secondly, it's because Archie is not in direct line to the throne at the time of birth and has to wait until he is a grandchild of the monarch, right? And some of the other children and grandchildren of women with royal titles inherited their titles from their aristocratic husband or father, right? Plenty of the Queen's other great grandchildren don't have titles, such as Harry's cousin's children. This doesn't mean they will never be in line to succession. Archie was offered an honorary title, but his parents turned it down. It's ridiculous that a once direct royal does not understand this, and instead implying that our Queen is racist, even though he says he "doesn't care". I'm just a commoner and I managed to figure it out in two minutes. Remember when Harry dressed as a Na zi and called his Asian colleague a "pa ki"? Pot calling the kettle black.
Their worth, as you have described, is completely at odds with Georgist economics where the only tax one pays is based on land value. Another interesting point is how London is a refuge for deposed royal families from across the globe. I became aware of this when working in Kensington several years ago. I was introduced to prince (so and so) and princess (so and so) all people with titles inherited from diposed royal families, who were hawking their titles to get work in media and finance. Quite frankly as a working class lad who had worked his way up on half-eaten boot-strapps I was quite appalled at how they expected the world to owe them a living just because they had an obscure title.
"The opposite of a monarchy isn't anarchy, it's a republic" -- I wish someone would explain this to the Americans. I've lost count of the number of times I've read/heard "the USA is a republic not a democracy", like the concepts are mutually exclusive. 🤦♂️
I’m confused by your point here... the US is a republic. It has many democratic institutions but constitutionally the functioning of the republic technically supersedes democracy. That why Trump was president despite having fewer votes than Hillary. Why each state gets 2 seats in the senate regardless of population...
They may be right, but probably not in the way they intended. 😅 _"The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.”_ - Julius Nyerere
@@kadencollinsThank you for making his point relevant. A REPUBLIC is a DEMOCRACY. Representative Democracy = Republic = Democracy kinda crazy. Direct democracy is a direct form of democracy rather than voting for representation, which again all of these are democracy.
@@kadencollins They're still not mutually exclusive concepts, the US is a democratic republic. It's a republic by extension of not being a monarchy, not by extension of not being a democracy. Double negative, sorry.
It's a constitutional republic as well as a representative democracy. The 'it is a constitutional republic' is just a cop-out excuse for when people suggest abolishing the electoral college. As I am here I may as well drop my two pennies on the electoral college, it's a redundant system, you have congress which is representative of local districts, you have the senate which is representative of the state as a whole. You have one person one vote for congressional and senate elections, the President should be the same. So to me, it makes sense for the presidential election to be decided by popular vote as the President should represent the entirety of the voting public.
Very true. The public image of Charles has been damaged, some say irreparably so, after cheating on HRH Princess Diana. There are hopes that the calls for his abdication or abolishing the monarchy are so strong that he steps down in favor of his Son William who will become King William V.
"And no the queen's not starting a soda business". Yes because Royal Crown Cola company already took the name. And then to sell it in the Southern US they would also be tempted to come up with their own version of the Moon Pie.
That’s bollox the land they own could be siezed in the name of the republic and the profit from it would be maintained anyway without having to finance the biggest benefit scroungers in Britain
Lol, right? American here, almost every time the British were forced out of a colonial territory the land they once held was redistributed. Besides they stole most of it from the Church anyway.
You missed the fact that most of the revenue those lands generate is precisely because they are related to nobility, and, like any other citizen, they have rights Ofer their own property. It is very likely that you do not own a house, but, if you did, would you want it taken away from you?
@@AlejandroGonzalez-rw9kt Yeah a german here. Our former Kaiser family first fled with trains full of stuff made by the german people. They also kept their land and property even though they denied democracy and when the Nazis came to Power our monarch and his fellows pacted with them in hope of restoring their Power. After the GDR had fallen they even claimed the land the soviets conviscated and there is a legal Dispute if they now get the castles in the east which the state repaired for much Money. It is just sad that they got to keep so much and even be greedy.
@@romitkumar6272 In my country (Italy) when we abolished the monarchy we seized everything. It was the possession of the king... no king, no possessions. In France they cut their heads. I mean, I don't see any problem if a country takes back what a country owns. On the other hand, I don't see that coming in UK. THere are too many people in UK who accept to be second class human beings with inferior rights due to bloodline. They'll grow out of it, with time, but not soon.
I was born in Ireland and was in the British army. It was easier to swear allegence to a crown thet broadly represents the country as a whole, than a president that will change and is probably part of a political party
So you prefer an oath to a person no one elected and there family (including prince Andrews) over an oath to the founding document of the country which is a symbol of the country, and its elected leader? Interesting
@@geoffmcclelland2663 You have misread my comment I said an insitution that broadly represents the country. If they changed the oath to somthing simelar then that would be OK
We can't abolish the aristocracy. Here are the reasons why: 1) The aristocracy is embedded also in the House of Commons and has strong connections with the PM and the Inner Halls of Power 2) The aristocracy is embedded into the economy So yes, the aristocracy is here to stay in the UK for good and forever. Also, you're a commie!!! Stop being a commie!!!
I'd just like to point out that the House of Lords with its 801 is by law restricted to hold only 92 (11%) nobles (hereditary peers), the rest are spiritual or temporal (non hereditary) while appointed by the Queen but advised and de facto selected by the current Prime Minister. So most aristocracy your house of Lords has is in the name. Also Denmark still has nobility, rank, titles are held and inherited, just no extra probilages granted to the families. As for British nobility. You may correct me if I'm wrong but I have not heard of many instances where the Queen has granted true nobility but instead is slowly letting your nobility die out granting only temporary titles.
Sorry for hair splitting but there are three potential inheritors to the French Crown, should the monarchy ever be reestablished (lol). Louis XX chief among them. Granted they don't own the formerly regal estates though.
I think that also has something to do with the French revolution. France has it's own intriguing narrative. Marie Antoinette and the French revolution. We just voted out the monarch is a much less interesting story to tell. Germany has it's own version of Versailles at Potsdam. It's nowhere as well known as Versailles, because the narrative is just not there.
@@1987jaffa the state, who can either keep it and all of its economic rent or sell it off to the highest bidder depending on their whims. Would serve the public good better than having royals waste it all.
They don't really own crown estates either: "The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch." So probably after abolishment it would find it's way to the state coffers anyway.
You did a nice research. Interesting!! Question : The EU pays all member states for agricultural land use.The states spread this as agricultural subsidies over the land users. As a EU member the Crown got a huge amount of EU money . In fact the Crown was the biggest EU subsidie receiver of the EU. Did this money go to the Royal household or was it too divided between State and the Royal hh. ??
But what you're missing is that the Royal Estate is land owned by the Sovereign not by Elizabeth Windsor as a person. If sovereignty moves from Elizabeth Windsor to the Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland those assets move to the Republic as they are now the Sovereign.
Untrue. The power over these things gets handed over to the government via the Monarch at the beginning of their tenure however a change to the negotiation on behalf of the government (or indeed the Royalty) will alter the terms of the deal and will put that stuff back in the hands of the Windsor family until it is renegotiated.
I am a naturalised British citizen, and I don't have particularly strong feelings on the subject, personally, I am neither into nor against royalty, but because it matters to so many people I am happy for it so long as it is not a burden, and as far as I can tell when everything is said and done there is a net positive outcome, so go royals, long live the king
As a foreigner this is the only response that to me just makes sense. People like to think that the Royal Family are a burden when in reality it is a net positive. Even if they were abolished I can still see their properties generating a lot of revenue for the state. So why would you want to go through the trouble of changing it up and getting rid of perhaps one of the most recognisable pieces of British History not to mention one of the most resilient symbols in European history. Where other European Royals faltered the UK's Royals survived. Bit of an oversight don't you think? Edit: spelling error
@@ThelostPenguin0 No it doesn't. It belongs to "The Crown" which is a part of the state. The head of the Windsor family currently administers the lands owned by "The Crown" but they do NOT personally own it. If the Windsor family has their position as the royal family revoked "The Crown" would be integrated into the state. You wouldn't say if we got rid of the prime minister he gets to keep the land owned by the state ffs.
@@Red1Green2Blue3 No you are wrong, the crown does not belong to the state. Don't spread misinformation. The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch. The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners). It's basically a independent organisation. If you dissolve the monarch (Not sure that is even possible, since there are other countries that are under the british monarchy it will be for sure a big mess.) Even at disbanding the monarch it will just not revert to the state. Worst case scenerio it will become a independent organisation. Still not belonging to the state.
Abolishing the monarchy and taking the royal lands is an option. The lands belong to the "crown", not to the queen or whoever. So if you get rid of the monarchy it makes sense the govt would just seize its estates.
Don't forget the queen in the UK is actually holding an office the same that in the USA us vice-president or prime minister in France of President in Germany, that role is second to the elected leader and it is needed in a democratic system to protect it during elections, transition of powers and so on. That office and role costs money and it is usually more expensive then the current system in the UK plus a royal is for life while each ex vice-president or ex-second person in charge costs money when they leave office every 2 terms or whatnot while a royal like the queen ,well she is there for life... Pretty sweet deal for the taxpayers actually
If we did get rid of the monarchy it would also be sensible to reclaim the land in the crown estate. The land the royals have inherited is just as important as the title.
@Trevor B the royal's ancestors gained that land through war and do you seriously think its reasonable to claim half the UKs foreshore as your own personal property.
@Trevor B It's actually state land, because the crown is the state. That's how monarchies work. If they abolished the monarchy, the land should all become publicly owned as it was always owned by the government, and is now. The crown is not a private entity.
I always find it interesting that people talk about the value of the royal estate as though we would abolish the monarchy and just let them keep all their land
@@runecrafter1198 sorry, I should have been more specific. I'm talking about the crown estates which belong to the monarch representing the crown. Either way you're right in that it's going to be messy and create problems. I just think the benefits of abolishen outway the costs
@@S0uti3 yeah i assumed that’s what you meant but the whole stealing things that has been in a family for hundreds of years creates far too many questions and fucks up the whole re brands the uk is trying to go through
@@runecrafter1198 But that land is owned by the crown, not the royal family. It is passed from monarch to monarch, not family member to family member. If the monarchy were abolished the Windsors would have no right to that land, hence it would not be stealing
I find the discussion about letting the royals keep their estate in the UK kind of funny. Nearly all other countries that abolished their monarchies simply had the state just ceize all of the monarch's property.
But compared to those Monarchs who were tyrants, the British monarchy did nothing wrong. I wonder if they think the UK will be a great place to invest in when the just robbed a huge amount of private assets just because it was part of their ideology
Can't really say you live in a civilised democracy if you can just seize anyone's land that they legally own when they have done nothing wrong. Regardless if you like/dislike the royal family.
@@MightyMarsh That's not true. The Crown Estate isn't the Queen's property, it's the Crown's property, and the Crown is inseparable from the State. Which makes perfect sense when you think about it for a second.
@@ArturoSubutex - exactly. I find it deeply frustrating and offensive to learn that the monarch owns the British seabed and foreshore. This should be state owned public territory fair and square.
If the institution of the monarchy were to be abolished, the family couldn't just keep their royal stuff. The Crown Estate etc. would, and should, fall into the hands of the government. So instead of getting 75% of the Crown Estate's profits, the UK government would now get 100%. The existence of the Crown Estate and the royal family's possession of it are arguments in FAVOR of abolition, not against it. The UK actively loses money by allowing them to take 25%. Cut out the middleman, oust the monarchy!
Of course keep the monarchy, who would you replace it with? A president? Germany has a president and if you're not german, you probably never heard of him. In Slovakia, there are full-blown elections for a useless man in politics. Queen / King of England is a figurehead for everyone, not just for half of the population. It's definitely better to keep a monarch if you have one.
@@Falcrist And who would be the head of a state? Johnson? There's a thing called separation of powers, every country has a head of a state. If you appoint the prime minister or a member of some party to serve the role, there would already be discontent from much of the population and a party preference, only other option would be to have a non party representative a.k.a. the president or some other title that would serve the same role
There is a very good reason you've never heard of the president of Germany, if you look into what happened to and around President Hindenburg you might understand why the presidency of Germany is what it is today. Believe me, they've tried a different route before and, oh boy, did it go wrong!
@@1chish you mean...how he is involved in a sex scandal and is accused of raping young girls? To the point the Royal Family had to hide him, even during his own daughter's wedding? Either you live under a rock or you are the actual troll.
@@Dianuxkasfenix Oh spare me the 'you must be' presumptions. It makes you look even more dumb than the rest of your comment makes you. Andrew is NOT involved in a sex scandal. Your first lie. Neither is he accused by anyone of 'raping young girls'. Your second lie. The Royal Family have not 'hidden him' either. He voluntarily withdrew from public duties after he apologised on air for maintaining contact with Epstein after his first jail term ended. He didn't hide it and apologised for a bad error of judgment. Your third lie. He chose not to attend his daughter's wedding (publicly) to avoid the press spoiling her day. He was there but out of sight. Your fourth lie. So 'Randomly Di' you peddle utter lies for some reason only known to yourself. You have neither facts nor sources. You are, in short, an idiot Trolling in the most disgusting way. Meghan would be proud of her little disciple.
I think that in a debate mostly based on economics (not politics or social tendencies) one of the key questions should also be what would a new public entity that takes the functions of the royal family (if the UK stopped being a monarchy) cost, of course there are functions you could just remove, but also there would be new functions/jobs (for example regulatory organs of this new institution). I think it would be interesting to know in such a scenario the aproximate value. Btw, I'm not from the UK.
their role is entirely ceremonial so whatever "functions" they perform could be done just as easily by actors or any random person on the street for that matter. And it wouldn't cost 92 million pounds a year. I mean the president of Germany is mostly ceremonial and he only gets paid 333K Euros a year. That is way cheaper.
Also if we got rid of them we’d have to write a whole new bunch of legislation on how the country is run, do you really want to trust the Torys with that?
Do you really think the royal family is stopping the conservatives from doing anything though? If the royal-family spoke up about politics they'd have half the royalists leave them or the other half. Conservatives like the royals because they stand for the inheritance of estates/wealth, privilege, and old-school (white) nationalism. Labour's right-wing just go along with them because they know the plebs like seeing their landlords throw parties and wear dresses.
I work in central London, and I can tell you that from an economic and identity standpoint the royal family is NOT a waste of money in any shape or form. Before covid, the Mall is completely surrounded by tourist of all ethnic persuasion. Summer time you can hardly get through. Because of the royals identify, and image. There is wonder and gravitas that brings tourists with fat wallets across the world to come and spend a large amount in central London, and bollster the economy. They generate far more income than they cost. For that I have no doubt.
Thank you. I like it when people use feelings, assumptions and anecdotal evidence rather than facts. It's why I like how hard the monarchy tries to hide how wealthy they are. Information like that would just get in the way.
@@geoffmcclelland2663 sometimes when you're working within a situation your eyes tells you how things go. Just like a shop you see everyday with noone going in. You know very well it will soon go out of business. Just like I know from walking across so many areas and seeing soo many closed or closing businesses that covid and lockdown is going to have a long and impactful dent in many industries especially traditional retail. A brain and eyes tells you the truth without the stats
Thomas Eze brain and eyes only tell you a part of the story, go past a night club during the day and you could think it's going under, there's a reason why eye witness are one of the least reliable forms of evidence.
@@geoffmcclelland2663 the brain is there to rationalize the factor that a night club would probably not be trading in the daytime, not the best analogy to use there.... Eye witnesses btw are strong aspects of evidence, as long as they are credible. Circumstancial evidence is the least reliable....
people go to france for wine, art, food, and romance, for the uk honestly the monarchy is one of the top 3 reasons, the first time i went to the uk it was probably my major factor for tourism.
@@vincentfrimpong4665 Here are most of the major London tourist attractions you could do in a one day walk. Start at Westminster station. London Eye is across river; Parliament, Big Ben and Westminster Abbey are across road. Walk through St James Park to Buckingham Palace. Up the Mall to Trafalgar Square. Along Haymarket to Piccadilly Circus. Through Leicester Square to Covent Garden. Down to the Strand. That is a morning's walk. Take a double-decker bus to St Paul's. Across the Millennium Bridge to Tate Modern and Globe Theatre. Walk along South Bank or take tube from Blackfriars. Go to Tower Bridge and Tower of London. That covers just about anything a tourist wants to see. Inly one has a real connection to the modern monarchy.
Lets spin this with a different question: Would France get more tourists per year because its much larger, has a warm southern coast as well as a cosmopolitan capital city?
As an American I don’t see why it would be needed. Why waste the money? You wouldn’t even need to have current royals to keep the tourist dollars coming in. Turn Buckingham Palace into a museum you can tour, they’ll make billions turning all the old royal shit into a tourist park or set of museums. Would still get the money without the bad press you get from men like Prince Andrew.
Not to mention news value. The royal wedding, the death of the Queen, and the coronation of the King were topics that dominated even foreign news for weeks.
If we get rid of the monarchy do we really just hand back the crown estate? I'm fairly certain the state would hold some of it, or even all of it, either way it would likely be a negotiation and settlement deal. Also capital gains tax?
in every other crown estate and property became national property . in India , France , russia etc all property of royals became national property and got managed by country.
@@ayushkumar-bg1xf Yes, but it seems unlikely to me that there would be an anti-monarchy revolution in Britain any time soon, so if the monarchy were to end, it would have to be done through different means. And that leads to different outcomes, so we can't really tell what would happen with the Crown Estates. There would probably have to be some sort of negotiation.
Don't forget that the Queen holds an official role which is that of vice-president in the USA, prime-minister in France or President in Germany, a second to the elected leader, that role is to protect the democratic process, to approve election results, to help transition power between leaders which you could see work in full force recently in the USA. That role requires and office and an official and that does not come cheap and actual may end up costing much more than the royal family current costs the UK, and every former president of Germany or vice-president in the USA is paid retirement funds in the millions each year, since the UK has a Royal for life in that position it actually is a pretty sweet deal since they don't need to pay each former official of that position.
Remember, Camerons first piece of legislation in 2010 was to give the sea bed under off shore windfarms to the queen. Yes, everytime you pay your electricity bill you are donating money to the Crown
The contract the government signed with the Royals states that they still own the land they are only giving up the profits if the monarchy was to be abolished the government couldn't just take the land as this would destabilise the economy you would have investors trying to sell off there land assets as what is to stop the government just taking land from anybody if they can take it from the royal family they would defiantly take it form people with less influence and power.
@@Riyoshi000 it was a contract with the government and the royal family the UK citizens have no impact on this. If the government brakes the contract it would find it self in trouble when creating new contracts as what is to stop them from breaking more contracts in the future. We could hold a referendum on keeping the monarchy or not but this is about as much impact the UK citizens could have that was non-violent. The majority of UK citizens either approve of the royal family or have no interest in it either way these is very few people that want to abolish it. if it is abolished it would then have to be replaced with something else like a written constitution so it would complete disabled the country wilt this was being sorted out.
@@arthas7 much of the American population likes the royal family which secures their soft power with the british people> you also have the commonwealth which was developed by the royal family and still facilitates relationships with many former colonies. This is to say nothing of India being one of the most Angelofile nations on the planet.
The point for me is that we will never have a fair and just society whilst the Establishment and Elitism presides. The royals are the head of the class system.
Wait if you'd abolish the monarchy what says you'd also have to give them 'their' lands? Stupid question maybe, but why not go all the way and just keep the historical buildings, lands, stop paying their expenses, and they can keep whatever's left?
@@gratitude6573 My assets weren't funded by generations of tax payers. At that point those buildings belong to the public in my eyes. The people living in them have, or should have, no political power or role outside of symbolic uses or nostalgia.
Even tho I live in america and don't care at all what the uk waste their money on.. I gotta say that was a really high quality well done video. Good job to you and your team
The monarchy is stable respected, so even when general elections produce idiots as prime minister's, the stability remains like a security blanket. A president would cost more and as USA proved with Trump upset the stability. Yes the royals like others are rich but a small benefit when you are living in a bubble watched all the time and lose any privacy like a normal person. I am grateful to them all for accepting that life style, except for Harry of course.
@@pauledwards4333 it wasn't so much the president but the media is vicious here. Literally nothing could happen and they will make up anything to get views. They want drama because drama=views=money.
The Royal Family is just another TOURIST ATTRACTION for England and should be valued in that manner. AS a result, the fact is the tourism that the royals generate is FAR greater than the amount spent to support the Monarchy and therefore is NOT a waste of money.
@@Bushflare but they act like they have this special connection to God and we're selected. They're simply a family with genetics for a terrible hairline.
@@MatthewJBD Because they do? I mean... at least in a religious sense the Queen is the head of the Church of England so she's essentially the CoE equivalent to the Pope. I don't know if it's reasonable to expect secularism out of them.
Great video can you PLEASE talk about the horrific new Crime and Police bill that gives the Home office insane new powers and curbs the right to protest?
I was talking to my husband when the queen died and he said he didn't know anything about Charles. I said that I thought he was maybe passionate about the environment and maybe Britain would lead the world in trying to save the planet for the next few decades. So then I watched his address the next day and he made it QUITE clear that he was going to immediately stop doing anything useful. It was very annoying. If they are not to use their platform for good, they are essentially fancy Kardashians, just living a reality TV show for entertainment purposes.
Why does the cost matter? If a dictatorship was cheaper should we go for that? The bigger question should be what is an unelected family doing at the top of a democracy?
some would say the crown estate belongs to the crown not the royal family en thus if they lose the titles they would also forefit the land to the governement they aren't really private citizen so neither is their property private property
Well, it used to be private property, so what right have the people taking this property from them? (Although I have a big problem with anybody accumulating that amount of wealth...)
@@allthatchas even if you didn't take it, if you levied property taxes against that land they would have to sell it, a beach isn't a good property investment, especially in the UK
Even if you did do that, how would it look from an investor looking in? Do I want to invest in this country where the citizens just take away private property? They're not citizens either so would they fear the same thing? It doesn't work. You'd make a nightmare.
@@ProfessorTenebrae the crown estate belongs to the crown so upon losing the crown it is forfeit. this is completly different from taking the land of private persons or private companies. The royals would still have enough stuff & money that is not tied up in the royal estate. as long as forfeiture happens reasonably no third party would bat an eye
@@emieldhondt2536 The Crown Estate belongs to the crown because the crown is the Windsor Family. It was established by the monarchy, and before it was established all the lands in question were owned by the Windsor Family. If the monarchy and by extension, the crown was abolished, the lands owned by the crown would revert back to being owned by the Windsor Family. They just wouldn't be royals anymore. The point you're not getting is it is like taking land and property from a private person or company, as the Windsor Family owned the lands before they were the Crown Estate, and after the Crown Estate ends they would again own them once more unless they were sold. The only reason the profits from them right now go to the government is that the British monarch surrenders those profits voluntarily. And they can stop doing so at any time they please.
Including the crown estates is pretty erroneous tbh; these estates would almost certainly be largely seized and either nationalised or sold off on the event of the royal family being abolished
You can’t nationalise a private citizens land. Imagine the precedent of ‘the government can freely take your land’, it could cause damage and breaks private property laws and even human rights to personal property... so good luck with that strategy
@@callumbanthorpe523 the land isn't n privately owned, it's owned by the head of state, any republicanisation is going to inherently be a negotiation with the newly private citizen about how much state assets they will retain ownership of, it also doesn't set any sort of relevant precedence because they will be the last monarch, there's no other situation where that's likely to apply short of re-establishing a monarchy then disbanding it again
@@me6664 taking land from a private citizen because the government thinks its theirs sets a precedent. You said they were private citizens so them being ‘the last monarch’ is irrelevant
@@callumbanthorpe523 there is a real debate over whether the CE belongs to the Queen or the Crown, which aren't the same thing. In reality, if we ever became a Republic, then the estate would end up being split.
Wrong with the exception of the duchy of cornwall all revenues are paid to the exchequer and those revenue's are worth a considerable amount more then is given through the civil list.
Being a monarchy is a huge part of the British identity. Maybe there are financial benefits and maybe geo political benefits resulting from the monarch's work as head of state, but it's the cultural identity that's most significant. The monarchy is Britain's link to its history and a cornerstone of its national identity. Any choice about whether or not to become a republic should revolve around that. Not the money.
How excactly did they come to ‘own’ so much land. If I decide to walk in to a apartment block kick in the door to an apartment and state it’s my property im pretty sure I would be arrested for theft. The crown estate is theft. And then the government takes the profits from it. Were im from thats proceeds of crime and gets you jail. Just sayin.
Then you'd have to do a wholesale rethink of property law. What would be the standard there? The monarchs of the past gave lands out to their pals that their descendants own today. Does that go too?
If monarchy is abolished all the crown estate would become PUBLIC property, and all 100% of its profit could go to the NHS. Abolishing monarchy would make perfect economic sense.
No it wouldn't most of the money would go into setting up something else, the entire way the country works is based around the neutral royal family having supreme control otherwise you must give that to someone like a president, basically very little money would actually make it to the treasury and even if it did would it really go to the NHS, it would probarbly go on wallpaper... and even if it did go to the NHS it wouldnt improve the NHS anyway
When we become a republic, there is zero chance of this family being allowed to keep the crown estate for themselves like its their private property. That land will be nationalised under any reasonable process of becoming a republic. Does the crown estate hold onto any land in the republic of Ireland? Exactly.
@@horiaalexbarabas1212 no. He is saying that the US canditates spend way too much on elections, which is appropriate. To become president you need exorbitant ammounts of money for campaigns. So stop labeling people "fascist" when you don't even understand whay they are talking about.
I imagine if you were going to go through all the trouble of finally making the full transition to a republic, seizing the royal lands would be one of the options on the table. That would change the balance of their cost and contribution significantly.
@@04nbod not to mention all the businesses on those "lands" that are making all the money they pay the government like the offshore windfarms, those are private businesses doubt any of the CEO's would like to hear they and all their employees are now government employees.
They may be expensive permanent national ambassadors but without all that wealth, they'd have no international clout as ambassadors or representatives for the nation. The wealth and status means they carry weight, when they do anything that interacts with others. They are a powerbase capable of negotiating with other powerbases around the world. There's nothing to gain by losing that. What happens if another powerful nation or bloc of nations doesn't like the politics of the current UK leader or something he or she does? Who can speak in support of their nation then, while still being in a position of high authority? Other nations like France, Germany and Russia don't need royalty - they don't need anyone outside of or above political leaders, because they don't have the same amount of vested interests internationally as far as trade arrangements, former colonies, the Commonwealth etc. Much of Britain's historical wealth came from outside its borders, and still does.
If we fire the royals - U.K. still will be able to all of the diplomacy work it is doing now - signing trade deal agreements, international protocols etc. Queen is not just a waste of money, she is an unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat.
@@strofikornego9408 Doesn't answer the question of how the UK would communicate with an unelected royal house of another country, which could wield great power also.
England is not particularly know for having calm and orderly transfers of power between monarchs. I'm not saying I think that will pose much of an issue going forward, but that's mostly because they don't have much in the way of real political power anymore, so why disrupt the gravy train.
No idea what you're trying to point out here, the First and Second ended by coup and the Third by war. The Fourth didn't end with bloodshed but by a new constitution. Those can effect any country, it's hardly a fault in the system that directly caused them.
Never heard a single person who wants to visit the UK, say it's because the royal family, they mainly talk about Big Ben, Scotland, Beatrix potter, and Jane Austen. If there is mention of royal family assets it's because their disappointed they can't go inside Buckingham palace.
So having your face printed on the national bill, all war ships named in your honor, all the key generals of the army are “lord” , therefore they pledge allegiance to you(not to the state), even the PM asks for you advice,well you can say that you are actually ruling the state from shadows.
Just amazes me how much they cost the regular citizen each year. Her funeral will cost the taxpayers around $10 mil but her worth is nearly half a billion. She should have paid for that herself and not even missed the funds. People are suffering yet they are just continuing to pile hardship on folks!!
Traditions are never a waste of money. They are what have got us to where we are now. That you can be thankful for. History is what differentiates our country from any others.
brits your so lucky and be thankful that u have only a pennies to contribute, here in thailand the monarchy was currupt and abusive, they've even not let us criticize them
Ok first of all, the moment the monarchy is abolished the Crown Estates, Palaces, Duchies, or whatever should go to the state. NOT the individuals. Its idiotic.
Well, I guess you (understandably) ignored one economic side of the anti-monarchy arguments: If we get rid of the royals, that does not mean that they get to keep their state as a whole, and thus, there is a way to save money and get rid of the monarchy. In fact, I'd argue that it makes little sense to get rid of them but let them keep everything they owned. The idea of republicanism is that it makes no sense to have a family that owns big part of the country (be that land or political power) "because".
They don't own anything! The people of Britain own the crown estate! The people of Cornwall own the duchy of Cornwall etcetera. The way this thoroughly anti-monarchist American sees it, let Liz die, and then let Chuckles live up to Chuckles the First's precedent!
one point in favor of the monarchy is that every republic becomes more expensive than their monarchs counterpart. you would think it would be the opposite, but the weird thing that the last century showed us is that common people are AWFUL at spending money in things we want/leisure and spend way more in things way less effective in making us happy.
@@dinamosflams are you in some way suggesting that a monarchy limits useless spending? By which mechanism? By using the money themselves? If this is the argument, please, give me the money instead, I'll make sure to spend it smartly. If not, what is your argument? To me it seems a non sequitur: yes, some countries have misused funds, but its completely uncorrelated to them having or not having a monarchy or them having or not having a big potato plantations. Denmark spends their money well? What about Thailand? Spain?
'The Crown' is not the Royal Family. It is the government judicial, legislative and executive. The Royal Family used to be the executive part of the government but now it is ornamental. The Crown owns the freehold to all property in the UK. You may think you own your home but legally you just have a lease. The same is true in countries like Canada where the Crown owns freehold to all land Crown Estates would revert back to the government not the Royal Family. Parliament as the supreme body could anyway pass an Act confiscating anything owned by the Royal Family
This assumes, totally incorrectly, that in the event of the dissolution of the Monarchy, the Crown Estates would be handed over to the Windsors as private property. If that were the case, they would still own most of Ireland. In reality, the Crown Estates were turned over to the Irish government when the Republic of Ireland became independent.
Yeah, and how well would that turn out. Once the government get their hands on something that is valuable long term, they are liable to sell it off as a short term fix (like Royal Mail).
the part of the crown estate, that's speculating that the royal family would keep them. if we were to remove the monarchy, we would most likely take the land too. the economic benefits for removing the family would be even better for the uk.
I disagree - whether or not you like the monarchy they are some of the best land MANAGERS in the country. Unsurprisingly when you consider it has been their family business for 1000 years! Managing land well really isn’t that easy. And yet they have consistently made great profits whilst doing excellent conservation work and upholding extremely high animal welfare standards. In contrast the British government is legendarily terrible at managing land. Just like their North Sea territories they would have a go for a bit, lose a bucket load of money due to incompetence/inexperience before inevitably selling it off to private entities. In which case say goodbye to your current 75% of the profits and transparent financial reporting. You’ll be lucky to get 10% after they’ve smuggled it off to tax havens!
@@georgemcdonald8470 well i would disagree with that, i bet it's not even the royal family who manages the land, i bet they hired people to do it for them. There are great lands managed by the government. Most of this land would be managed the same way it was before being taken by the central government. the royal family does not have magical powers to manage land, it's a profession and people are taught on how to do it. The royal family inherited that land, they didn't work for it. They should not have a god given right to that land, it should owned by the public not by a wealthy family.
I'm from The Netherlands, we're kind of in the same boat, so I feel like I can share my opinion on this. In theory/morally it is hard to justify a monarchy. No one deserves to be born into power (even if it's very little these days). In practice though, it seems that our countries benefit from their monarchy and they are very harmless, so we might as well keep them around as the alternative is uncertainty. So basically I'm a republican who tolerates monarchs 😅
Agreed! to be fair a lot of rich people are born into power! At least this family actually have some benefits. It's not like we're living in the 1800s and we're oppressed by them. Live and let live is my view on it.
The crown estate belongs to the crown and by extension the country. Not to the monarch. If Britain transitions to a Republic, why should the Royal family keep the entire estate or any of the estate for that matter?
The US secret service has a budget somewhere around 1.8 billion... security costs for the Head of State can be just as high, or higher, without a monarchy.
Yes, I remember seeing a comparison showing France paid more for their presidency than we do for the monarchy. And personally, I’m happy not to have a politician as head of state.
I think one thing that also needs to be taken into consideration is the Queen's political purposes. Rightly or wrongly, she could theoretically prevent someone from taking the office of PM and/or remove them from office. It's an interesting way that a tyrant could be stopped from seizing power in parliament.
Very good point, I see the Monarchy as our equivalent to the USA's 2A. It's a fail safe that prevents anyone in politics from gaining too much power over the people.
Crown property belongs to the Crown, not to the individual who happens to wear it. If you want republic, there's no reason why the formerly-royal family would be given a bunch of the nation's property and the profits therefrom.
Miss Meghan and american media show us every day, that the cost of paying actual royals is worth every penny and more. Btw. you can keep Mr. Macrón for free.
I think that the monarchy is what helps maintain the special relationship of the Commonwealth, and the political value of the strength of the commonwealth is far greater than any of those calculations
@@M4nu3l90F yeah but having 1 figurehead makes the countries have common ground to tie themselves together. Sure Britain and France hated each other but because of shared aspirations in imperialism and being in 2 major wars on the same side made them allies because they relate to one another
Canadian here. I absolutely hate the idea that there is someone who is not elected who has the power to refuse to allow democratically created laws. Are we a democracy or not? The fact it’s someone who’s not even Canadian is salt in the wound. It takes years for immigrants to get permanent residency (the step before citizenship - you need to have it a while before you can take the next step) and friends of mine who spent nearly a decade getting a permanent residency, or who’ve lived here for years, aren’t allowed to vote. We can talk about whether or not that’s good, but it’s ridiculous that people who’ve spent years doing all the right things to become Canadian aren’t allowed a single vote but at the same time someone who doesn’t even live here has the power to overturn our entire government’s decisions.
What bothers me the most about these people, is that they didn’t get there by merit, in other words they DID NOT EARN IT, THEY WERE BORN TO A CERTAIN MOTHER AND FATHER. They are not better than the rest of us, or more talented, or smarter. They were born to the same family that has ruled for over 1,000 years. Charles is a hipocrite, he tells the rest of us to fly commercial, while he uses private jets, a 95% increase in carbon footprint. Do you think that’s right? I like the expression “That Ain’t Right”.
@@connorcameronjaggsThe royals do not maintain their estate. The cleaners, curators, gardeners etc are the ones who work to keep up the estates. If the lands and buildings were owned by the state, rather than the royals, nothing would have to change. The government already pays their wages.
The royal family has made a market off brand recognition, the lands build up that brand but are unprofitable in their own right. In purely economic terms, the royals are one of the greatest means today to convert public goodwill back into a tangible economic force for the UK government. The fact that the royals are profitable, at all, is incredible when you consider they are lacking in industry connections and focus mainly on land conservation and public service (aka a sinkhole for money). That’s like finding out your local wildlife conservation agency is in the black for 1 million dollars without taking on grants.
@@connorcameronjaggs Well if they’re not profitable then yes but if they’re profitable the state to maintain them as museums and why should the minor is states that are profitable be kept up in the first place
yet lots of democracies have monarchies. So there’s obviously something to it. Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Spain come to mind.
The country isn't democratic. We have democratic elections, used to gain consent to be governed, and we have used that to vote for governments that have sold off state assets, transferring power from democratically controlled institutions to non-democratically controlled private institutions. A country is not one thing, I don't vote for what you eat for dinner, some processes are democratic, some processes are not... the country is just the place where all this happens.
I might be biased, coming from a country that threw them off nearly 250 years ago, but “dieu et mon droit” is galling. Gauling? Either way, I know the US has problems, but I’d rather be a citizen than a subject.
Well as a proud subject of HR majesty the Queen I'd rather die for my Queen as a subject than for a pleb that a load of half whits voted in plus pleb wont be sticking round anywhere near as long as the Queen has.
they don't really control the country at all. They're a lot more like a figurehead and a symbol of Britain, rather than something that is constantly controlling you. They have little to no power and are literally just nominal leaders. In the US, you have no one who you constantly look up to for inspiration, feel passionate about, or be proud of other than your president who changes every couple of years and is much more divisive in the way US citizens feel about him, rather than uniting and representing the country as a whole. Which is what the Queen does.
I think you missed the obvious. The Royal Estate could be ceased and nationalized. The claim the royals have for the position of head of state is as dodgy as the claim for most of the estate.
also like, if the palaces are still there when the royalty is gone you can still go in and be a tourist, just look at all the german castles or bloody any other historical building in any other country, its usually open for tourists while not having a monarchy.
Obviously we’d confiscate their land and give it back to the people, too. You don’t get to stop being the monarch to “just” be the wealthiest family in the country. We cut you a deal, you each get a lump sum of cash and you’re exiled forever. Considering what happened to Charles 1st, I’m sure Charles 3rd would count himself lucky.
I think there is a great deal of value in holding onto Britain's ancient culture and the Royals are deeply intertwined with that. People put a negative slant on the crown due to Britain's expansionist past, however at the height of it's power Britain was already a Democracy. With the Monarch having little say in what wars were fought and what lands were taken. Australia was, for lack of a better word, conquered in 1788. But it isn't as if King George III ordered the first fleet to set sail in his name. By then England was ruled by Parliament and had been for 139 years.
CLARIFICATION: In the video, we make a number of claims surrounding the Crown Estate and just how the monarch receives from the Crown Estate or the Government. We wish to clarify the following: The Crown Estate is not the property of the Royal Family nor the Monarch in their personal capacity. As the Crown Estate website (www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/our-business/our-structure-and-governance/) stresses "The assets of The Crown Estate are therefore not the property of the Government, nor are they the Sovereign's private estate. They are part of the hereditary possessions of the Sovereign "in right of the Crown". In more simple terms, the Crown Estate is owned by the monarch "by virtue of their accession to the throne" "for the duration of their reign". Think of it like the keys to an office - when you start a new job (in non-COVID times), you'll probably get your own set of keys. You "own" these keys by virtue of your employment for the duration of that employment. If you quit, or are fired, the keys are no longer yours. The calculation of the Sovereign Grant is a bit more complicated than what we explained in the video. The Royal Family doesn't immediately skim off 25% of that year's revenues or net profits. Rather the entirety of it is sent to the Treasury. The Treasury then, in accordance with the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, calculates and sends to the Crown the Sovereign Grant. Under Section 6 of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 (www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/15/section/6), the Sovereign Grant is calculated as follows: First, calculate 25% of the Crown Estate income for two years prior (i.e. when calculating the Sovereign Grant for 2021-22 use figures from the Crown Estate corresponding to 2019-20). Round that figure up to the nearest 100 grand. Then compare the rounded figure with the Sovereign Grant given last year. (After some adjustments), award the higher amount. In effect, the Sovereign Grant has a ratchet clause embedded in it - the Grant can only ever go up. Subsequently, say hypothetically due to a pandemic, the Crown Estate makes a loss that year. The Sovereign Grant will not suddenly become negative - the Treasury would have to stump up cash from elsewhere.
Thanks for clarifying! Good to see some honesty and integrity from a news source.
Once again your video is wildly inaccurate, stop using Wikipedia as a source hahaha
If that's the case, then wouldn't the crown estate become a sovereign estate of the republic in the event the monarchy were abolished? I don't know what UK republicans are arguing for exactly, but in a number of European states which made the switch, the estate previously considered a prerogative of the monarchy was confiscated and taken over by the state in order to serve public functions such as hosting ministeries or museums (France and Italy are good examples of this).
Glad you finally clarified this. I would just add one further point when people talk about abolishing the monarchy. Personally, I believe the Royals serve no useful function, and it is wrong for the Head of State to be a hereditary position. However, due to the nature of their status, it would be near impossible to get rid of them - at least via democratic means. When the late Paul Flynn MP tried to raise questions in Parliament about Prince Andrew's dodgy behaviour, he was cut off by the Speaker, less than a minute into his speech and told that "references to the Royals must be rare, brief, and respectful". And that's before MPs are reminded of their Oath of Allegiance. This is also why historically, the only way monarchs have been deposed is via major events - such as wars or revolutions.
That analogy is really wrong. Its nothing like they keys to an office, a closer more accurate analogy that less miss leading would be to equate it to a land trust.
Your analogy alludes to the goverment ha ing some right to that land if the monarch was abolished which its dosnt I herently have, obviously this is something that would knly be resolved in a lengthy court dispute but as the land is tied to the crown and the crown is inherited, from a basic starting point the Royal family has the larger claim to its rights.
TLDR forgot to include all the swans in UK under the royal assets.
That's not true.
it is. they make up 5% of britain’s gdp
not all UK swans are crown assets,
All the swans on the Thames I think and from several other locations. Maybe upto a 3rd of the UK's swans.
@John Higgins They don't, the Swans in Orkney belong to the people that live there, not the crown.
“Something Germany and France seem to be able to cope fine with”
well, they had a couple of tries
France is on its 6th attempt at a Republic. Germany is only at its second.
@@dcassus you mean 5th attempt for France
We tried too. Look how that turned out.
Russia tried too, and we had USSR, China tried, they had a fashist republik, broke up, had a large Civil war, and now thwy are communists, shamelessly grabbing the stuff they want
France spends more on Macron than we spend on the Royal Family
"Do we need a monarchy?"
The Queen: Are you threatening me Master Jedi?
It’s treason then
@@kyledavis463 Queen brings out red glowing rod thing and do flying spins through the air~*
Dewit
@@kyledavis463 diana screaming right now
Note the corrupt chancellor was elected, not hereditarily inherited.
“France hasn’t had a monarchy for 200 years”
Napoleon III: am I a joke to you?
Bismark: Yes
Hahaha yes, yes you are. There are few better European jokes than Boney III.
They didn't claim that France hadn't had a monarchy for 200 year (at least if you refering to the comment at 6:36) - they claimed that Versailles hadn't been home to royalty for 200 years which is true - the last king living in Versailles was Louis XVI (till October 1789) and all plans of later Kings / Emperors to return didn't come reality.
Yes
@@282XVL to be honest other then the Franco-Prussian war his reign was probably more successful then napoleon 1
I mean, as a French i don't see why both titles and estade can't be claimed by the people. But you know, French way of dealing with monarchy could be a bit extreme
@Rusty Shackleford must not like your aunt lol
As a brit I 100% agree, crown estate is not the crowns private property, acting like it is is misleading. Just seize it and then have a net profit that can go to helping way more people than the few in the monarchy, put it back in the NHS.
Hey, the Brits were chopping up their monarchs a century before you got around to it. The fact that they changed their minds doesn't change the fact that they came up with the idea first.
The heads of state in France (Presidents, Prime Ministers) have hardly proved to be paragons of virtue, if recent news is to be believed ! Just because someone is elected doesn't mean they'll automatically be somehow better than an imposed monarchy.
@@jediplop3563 how is it misleading?
“Hosting garden parties and travelling” oh boy how us commoners would love to do some of that right now
No you wouldn't
@@michaelshore2300 why so? Seems an easy life...
@@euanwalker922 imagine doing but with your every move scrutinized by the most insurable people in the country.
@@BastiatC he would rather have the money go to Soros
To be fair, neither is the royal family. The Queen's been in isolation at Windsor since the pandemic started.
"They can't just spend it on what they want, it has to be used on things like garden parties and travel..." - oh, the poor dears, lol.
what are garden party's? i always thought it was entertain foreign diplomat's, so we can do trade talks so we have better trade deals.. as kinda like talking clients out for a meal to put them in a good mood for a deal to be made..
am i wrong? o.O
@@junaidwhatyon3172 your right
Yes aka they can spend it on what they want maybe they will have enother wedding or kid for the tax payees to fund, they are the biggest scammers in the uk them royals, tbf it is mostly the government because the royals get royalitys from the government in the form of a sovereign grant, the government still has the tax payers money to do what the hell they want with it.
And have to use it to remodel where they live. Oh the humanity they use it all for things that benefit themselves.
@Junaid they are not always just for potential business deals it can be for birthdays too it can be for whatever they want. Its not limited to business.
The British people will decide on what to do with their monarchs. As a non-British, I will only observe.
Doubtful we here in the UK will ever be given that opportunity.
With lots of popcorn.
You need to frame it as choosing between Trump and Queen Elizabeth II. Then the correct answer is plain to all.
@@nadeemchaudhry6585 even if you do, I am curious about technicalities. eg, Alll MPs swore oath of allegiance to the Queen, even with Republican tendency like Jeremy Corbyn. Don't they broke their oath by legislating monarchy abolition?
That's kinda how I feel about the whole thing I live in amarica and my country has been on fire for 4 years so every once and awhile I look over at the other dumpster fire and watch
“It’s treason then.”
*Her Majesty pulls out a sabre from out of no where.*
she should try spinning, that's a good trick
Not from nowhere. From the bloody stone, mate 🤫
Then she'll show those pesky republicans her Unlimited Powaaah.
Lightsaber? Pfft! She draws Excalibur from an ornate scabbard dangling at her side!
@@리주민 The stone of scone?
You need to do a video explaining to the Americans why Archie dosent have a title. Pretty obvious to us Brits but they seem to think it's because of racism.
Totally agree
Not to be rude but the people that video would be meant for wouldn't care... They'd just call TLDR racist. The "woke" liberals in my country have ripped the guts out of the word "racism", and use it for anything a white person disagrees with a black person about... For example, I don't like Megan Markel for any other reason then I think she's a dishonest, self important, entitled, brat... Nothing to do with the color of her skin, but I'm sure someone "woke" will see this and call me a racist.
Firstly, this matter shouldn't concern Americans. Secondly, it's because Archie is not in direct line to the throne at the time of birth and has to wait until he is a grandchild of the monarch, right? And some of the other children and grandchildren of women with royal titles inherited their titles from their aristocratic husband or father, right? Plenty of the Queen's other great grandchildren don't have titles, such as Harry's cousin's children. This doesn't mean they will never be in line to succession. Archie was offered an honorary title, but his parents turned it down. It's ridiculous that a once direct royal does not understand this, and instead implying that our Queen is racist, even though he says he "doesn't care". I'm just a commoner and I managed to figure it out in two minutes. Remember when Harry dressed as a Na zi and called his Asian colleague a "pa ki"? Pot calling the kettle black.
Who is Archie?
@@Edsbar Peter griffins brother
Their worth, as you have described, is completely at odds with Georgist economics where the only tax one pays is based on land value. Another interesting point is how London is a refuge for deposed royal families from across the globe. I became aware of this when working in Kensington several years ago. I was introduced to prince (so and so) and princess (so and so) all people with titles inherited from diposed royal families, who were hawking their titles to get work in media and finance. Quite frankly as a working class lad who had worked his way up on half-eaten boot-strapps I was quite appalled at how they expected the world to owe them a living just because they had an obscure title.
"The opposite of a monarchy isn't anarchy, it's a republic" -- I wish someone would explain this to the Americans. I've lost count of the number of times I've read/heard "the USA is a republic not a democracy", like the concepts are mutually exclusive. 🤦♂️
I’m confused by your point here... the US is a republic. It has many democratic institutions but constitutionally the functioning of the republic technically supersedes democracy. That why Trump was president despite having fewer votes than Hillary. Why each state gets 2 seats in the senate regardless of population...
They may be right, but probably not in the way they intended. 😅
_"The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.”_
- Julius Nyerere
@@kadencollinsThank you for making his point relevant. A REPUBLIC is a DEMOCRACY. Representative Democracy = Republic = Democracy kinda crazy. Direct democracy is a direct form of democracy rather than voting for representation, which again all of these are democracy.
@@kadencollins They're still not mutually exclusive concepts, the US is a democratic republic. It's a republic by extension of not being a monarchy, not by extension of not being a democracy. Double negative, sorry.
It's a constitutional republic as well as a representative democracy. The 'it is a constitutional republic' is just a cop-out excuse for when people suggest abolishing the electoral college.
As I am here I may as well drop my two pennies on the electoral college, it's a redundant system, you have congress which is representative of local districts, you have the senate which is representative of the state as a whole.
You have one person one vote for congressional and senate elections, the President should be the same. So to me, it makes sense for the presidential election to be decided by popular vote as the President should represent the entirety of the voting public.
Once the Monarchy passes to Prince Charles this conversation will truly take shape.
Does anyone like Charles? Surely this will be the end of the monarchy.
@@lifewhatsoever - William and Kate would be better than Charles.
@@chrismckellar9350 oh yeah that’s for sure
I have a lot of respect for Prince Charles. Always have had.
Very true. The public image of Charles has been damaged, some say irreparably so, after cheating on HRH Princess Diana. There are hopes that the calls for his abdication or abolishing the monarchy are so strong that he steps down in favor of his Son William who will become King William V.
"And no the queen's not starting a soda business".
Yes because Royal Crown Cola company already took the name. And then to sell it in the Southern US they would also be tempted to come up with their own version of the Moon Pie.
Plus it would interfere with the deal with Schweppes
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 F-ing TEXANS😁
Just use
Windsor Royal cola
That’s bollox the land they own could be siezed in the name of the republic and the profit from it would be maintained anyway without having to finance the biggest benefit scroungers in Britain
Lol, right? American here, almost every time the British were forced out of a colonial territory the land they once held was redistributed. Besides they stole most of it from the Church anyway.
That's what we (italians) did.
You missed the fact that most of the revenue those lands generate is precisely because they are related to nobility, and, like any other citizen, they have rights Ofer their own property. It is very likely that you do not own a house, but, if you did, would you want it taken away from you?
@@AlejandroGonzalez-rw9kt Yeah a german here. Our former Kaiser family first fled with trains full of stuff made by the german people. They also kept their land and property even though they denied democracy and when the Nazis came to Power our monarch and his fellows pacted with them in hope of restoring their Power. After the GDR had fallen they even claimed the land the soviets conviscated and there is a legal Dispute if they now get the castles in the east which the state repaired for much Money.
It is just sad that they got to keep so much and even be greedy.
@@romitkumar6272
In my country (Italy) when we abolished the monarchy we seized everything.
It was the possession of the king... no king, no possessions.
In France they cut their heads.
I mean, I don't see any problem if a country takes back what a country owns.
On the other hand, I don't see that coming in UK.
THere are too many people in UK who accept to be second class human beings with inferior rights due to bloodline.
They'll grow out of it, with time, but not soon.
I was born in Ireland and was in the British army. It was easier to swear allegence to a crown thet broadly represents the country as a whole, than a president that will change and is probably part of a political party
How about swearing allegence to The People/The Country directly? Why do you need some clown with a crown to represent it?
So you prefer an oath to a person no one elected and there family (including prince Andrews) over an oath to the founding document of the country which is a symbol of the country, and its elected leader? Interesting
@@geoffmcclelland2663
Yes.chad
@@hop3106 that would do but was not available to me at the time.
@@geoffmcclelland2663 You have misread my comment I said an insitution that broadly represents the country. If they changed the oath to somthing simelar then that would be OK
Denmark is a monarchy, but without any House of Lords or nobility. Way to go IMO.
We can't abolish the aristocracy. Here are the reasons why:
1) The aristocracy is embedded also in the House of Commons and has strong connections with the PM and the Inner Halls of Power
2) The aristocracy is embedded into the economy
So yes, the aristocracy is here to stay in the UK for good and forever. Also, you're a commie!!! Stop being a commie!!!
It's better, but I don't see the point of keeping someone in power just for being born in a certain family
I'd just like to point out that the House of Lords with its 801 is by law restricted to hold only 92 (11%) nobles (hereditary peers), the rest are spiritual or temporal (non hereditary) while appointed by the Queen but advised and de facto selected by the current Prime Minister.
So most aristocracy your house of Lords has is in the name.
Also Denmark still has nobility, rank, titles are held and inherited, just no extra probilages granted to the families.
As for British nobility. You may correct me if I'm wrong but I have not heard of many instances where the Queen has granted true nobility but instead is slowly letting your nobility die out granting only temporary titles.
Vote for the reform Party then
@@kamanashiskar9203
The danish and swedish aristocracy existed as well. As you can see, they have been neutralised.
Yes. People still go see the French palace's even though the family has been dead for centuries.
Sorry for hair splitting but there are three potential inheritors to the French Crown, should the monarchy ever be reestablished (lol). Louis XX chief among them. Granted they don't own the formerly regal estates though.
Interesting fact: the French royalty bloodline still exists! Actually in two different bloodlines
Nobody is saying to k*ll the british monarchy either, just arguing they could not be gobbling public money and still the palace have value
Exactly Versailles is the most visited palace in the world.
I think that also has something to do with the French revolution. France has it's own intriguing narrative. Marie Antoinette and the French revolution. We just voted out the monarch is a much less interesting story to tell. Germany has it's own version of Versailles at Potsdam. It's nowhere as well known as Versailles, because the narrative is just not there.
There's no reason to allow the royals to keep their estate after abolishing the monarchy.
So who is the rightfull owner of all that equity then?
Aha, so you want live in mansion you didnt build. Now, I am starting to understand all those "republican" arguments.
@@1987jaffa the state, who can either keep it and all of its economic rent or sell it off to the highest bidder depending on their whims. Would serve the public good better than having royals waste it all.
@@evilsorosfundedgovernments433 so now the government can take anyone's property and land if they want.
@@Zachary_McLaren The state has the power to do that anyways.
That's assuming the royals would keep the Crown Estate if the monarchy was abolished. Really that land belongs to the British public.
They don't really own crown estates either:
"The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch."
So probably after abolishment it would find it's way to the state coffers anyway.
You did a nice research. Interesting!!
Question : The EU pays all member states for agricultural land use.The states spread this as agricultural subsidies over the land users. As a EU member the Crown got a huge amount of EU money . In fact the Crown was the biggest EU subsidie receiver of the EU. Did this money go to the Royal household or was it too divided between State and the Royal hh. ??
Good question
Well, now the uks not part of the eu
The EU got a huge amount of money from the UK, so I guess nobody cares..
But what you're missing is that the Royal Estate is land owned by the Sovereign not by Elizabeth Windsor as a person. If sovereignty moves from Elizabeth Windsor to the Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland those assets move to the Republic as they are now the Sovereign.
The British Republic sounds shit though
Untrue. The power over these things gets handed over to the government via the Monarch at the beginning of their tenure however a change to the negotiation on behalf of the government (or indeed the Royalty) will alter the terms of the deal and will put that stuff back in the hands of the Windsor family until it is renegotiated.
The state can just take it back.
@@KarlMarshall
Ooh, that's a "Yikes" moment if I ever saw one.
@@jamesoakley4570 perhaps federation?
I am a naturalised British citizen, and I don't have particularly strong feelings on the subject, personally, I am neither into nor against royalty, but because it matters to so many people I am happy for it so long as it is not a burden, and as far as I can tell when everything is said and done there is a net positive outcome, so go royals, long live the king
As a foreigner this is the only response that to me just makes sense. People like to think that the Royal Family are a burden when in reality it is a net positive. Even if they were abolished I can still see their properties generating a lot of revenue for the state. So why would you want to go through the trouble of changing it up and getting rid of perhaps one of the most recognisable pieces of British History not to mention one of the most resilient symbols in European history. Where other European Royals faltered the UK's Royals survived. Bit of an oversight don't you think?
Edit: spelling error
If we abolished the monarchy it would be pretty easy to also revoke crown lands and run them nationally.
I think generally this sets a bad president for wealth seizure and would damage confidence in the UK.
Ain't happening mate. No longer the guillotine time it's now the rule of law. Property belongs to them.
It's a "Yikes" from me, fam.
@@ThelostPenguin0 No it doesn't. It belongs to "The Crown" which is a part of the state. The head of the Windsor family currently administers the lands owned by "The Crown" but they do NOT personally own it. If the Windsor family has their position as the royal family revoked "The Crown" would be integrated into the state.
You wouldn't say if we got rid of the prime minister he gets to keep the land owned by the state ffs.
@@Red1Green2Blue3 No you are wrong, the crown does not belong to the state. Don't spread misinformation.
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.
The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners).
It's basically a independent organisation. If you dissolve the monarch (Not sure that is even possible, since there are other countries that are under the british monarchy it will be for sure a big mess.) Even at disbanding the monarch it will just not revert to the state. Worst case scenerio it will become a independent organisation. Still not belonging to the state.
Abolishing the monarchy and taking the royal lands is an option. The lands belong to the "crown", not to the queen or whoever. So if you get rid of the monarchy it makes sense the govt would just seize its estates.
Don't forget the queen in the UK is actually holding an office the same that in the USA us vice-president or prime minister in France of President in Germany, that role is second to the elected leader and it is needed in a democratic system to protect it during elections, transition of powers and so on. That office and role costs money and it is usually more expensive then the current system in the UK plus a royal is for life while each ex vice-president or ex-second person in charge costs money when they leave office every 2 terms or whatnot while a royal like the queen ,well she is there for life... Pretty sweet deal for the taxpayers actually
The crown is a company that the monarch is the head of. Get rid of the monarchy and the crown is still owned by the same person.
If we did get rid of the monarchy it would also be sensible to reclaim the land in the crown estate. The land the royals have inherited is just as important as the title.
Exactly. There's nothing saying parliament can't just nationalise the crown estate.
That would require an illegal french style revolution.
@@alecneate76 why? Parliament could just pass a law nationalising it.
@Trevor B the royal's ancestors gained that land through war and do you seriously think its reasonable to claim half the UKs foreshore as your own personal property.
@Trevor B It's actually state land, because the crown is the state. That's how monarchies work. If they abolished the monarchy, the land should all become publicly owned as it was always owned by the government, and is now. The crown is not a private entity.
I always find it interesting that people talk about the value of the royal estate as though we would abolish the monarchy and just let them keep all their land
it is still legally there land and stealing it would open up a lot of issues
@@runecrafter1198 sorry, I should have been more specific. I'm talking about the crown estates which belong to the monarch representing the crown. Either way you're right in that it's going to be messy and create problems. I just think the benefits of abolishen outway the costs
@@S0uti3 yeah i assumed that’s what you meant but the whole stealing things that has been in a family for hundreds of years creates far too many questions and fucks up the whole re brands the uk is trying to go through
@@runecrafter1198 But that land is owned by the crown, not the royal family. It is passed from monarch to monarch, not family member to family member. If the monarchy were abolished the Windsors would have no right to that land, hence it would not be stealing
@@runecrafter1198 unlike the family stealing it and keeping it for hundreds of years?
I find the discussion about letting the royals keep their estate in the UK kind of funny. Nearly all other countries that abolished their monarchies simply had the state just ceize all of the monarch's property.
But compared to those Monarchs who were tyrants, the British monarchy did nothing wrong.
I wonder if they think the UK will be a great place to invest in when the just robbed a huge amount of private assets just because it was part of their ideology
Can't really say you live in a civilised democracy if you can just seize anyone's land that they legally own when they have done nothing wrong. Regardless if you like/dislike the royal family.
@@MightyMarsh That's not true. The Crown Estate isn't the Queen's property, it's the Crown's property, and the Crown is inseparable from the State. Which makes perfect sense when you think about it for a second.
@@ArturoSubutex - exactly. I find it deeply frustrating and offensive to learn that the monarch owns the British seabed and foreshore. This should be state owned public territory fair and square.
@@ArturoSubutex True, but the Queen also owns properties and estates privately. Sandringham is an example.
Getting rid of the monarchy sorta screws up the name, United Kingdom.
Well the name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland....
I would visit the shit out of the United Republic
@@philipschloesser more likely to be England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. No United
@@Obi_boy Or any other partition of the four, true...
@@Obi_boy not for long
6:40' 'even if they haven't been home to royalty for 200 years' - and a head coming off, brilliant 😂
That's Louis XVI head, but the last monarch is Napoleon III 😂 but the years is correct
If the institution of the monarchy were to be abolished, the family couldn't just keep their royal stuff. The Crown Estate etc. would, and should, fall into the hands of the government. So instead of getting 75% of the Crown Estate's profits, the UK government would now get 100%. The existence of the Crown Estate and the royal family's possession of it are arguments in FAVOR of abolition, not against it.
The UK actively loses money by allowing them to take 25%. Cut out the middleman, oust the monarchy!
Of course keep the monarchy, who would you replace it with? A president? Germany has a president and if you're not german, you probably never heard of him. In Slovakia, there are full-blown elections for a useless man in politics. Queen / King of England is a figurehead for everyone, not just for half of the population. It's definitely better to keep a monarch if you have one.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
"figurehead for everyone" that is simply untrue.
Why would abolishing the monarchy require you to have a president?
Just keep the commons, and ditch the royalty and nobility.
@@Falcrist And who would be the head of a state? Johnson? There's a thing called separation of powers, every country has a head of a state. If you appoint the prime minister or a member of some party to serve the role, there would already be discontent from much of the population and a party preference, only other option would be to have a non party representative a.k.a. the president or some other title that would serve the same role
There is a very good reason you've never heard of the president of Germany, if you look into what happened to and around President Hindenburg you might understand why the presidency of Germany is what it is today. Believe me, they've tried a different route before and, oh boy, did it go wrong!
It wasn't last week's interview that changed my opinion, it was Andrew's.
So why should an innocent man change your views? Please do explain I am all ears.
@@1chish need laugh react.
@@avancalledrupert5130 These people are just trolling. When you ask them for facts they are gone like a fart in the wind...
@@1chish you mean...how he is involved in a sex scandal and is accused of raping young girls? To the point the Royal Family had to hide him, even during his own daughter's wedding? Either you live under a rock or you are the actual troll.
@@Dianuxkasfenix Oh spare me the 'you must be' presumptions. It makes you look even more dumb than the rest of your comment makes you.
Andrew is NOT involved in a sex scandal. Your first lie.
Neither is he accused by anyone of 'raping young girls'. Your second lie.
The Royal Family have not 'hidden him' either. He voluntarily withdrew from public duties after he apologised on air for maintaining contact with Epstein after his first jail term ended. He didn't hide it and apologised for a bad error of judgment. Your third lie.
He chose not to attend his daughter's wedding (publicly) to avoid the press spoiling her day. He was there but out of sight. Your fourth lie.
So 'Randomly Di' you peddle utter lies for some reason only known to yourself. You have neither facts nor sources. You are, in short, an idiot Trolling in the most disgusting way. Meghan would be proud of her little disciple.
I think that in a debate mostly based on economics (not politics or social tendencies) one of the key questions should also be what would a new public entity that takes the functions of the royal family (if the UK stopped being a monarchy) cost, of course there are functions you could just remove, but also there would be new functions/jobs (for example regulatory organs of this new institution). I think it would be interesting to know in such a scenario the aproximate value. Btw, I'm not from the UK.
their role is entirely ceremonial so whatever "functions" they perform could be done just as easily by actors or any random person on the street for that matter. And it wouldn't cost 92 million pounds a year.
I mean the president of Germany is mostly ceremonial and he only gets paid 333K Euros a year. That is way cheaper.
they can just tax them like the rest of the population.
@@IvarDaigon they are not just ceremonial. They also do diplomatic missions and fund many many charities and youth organisations
Also if we got rid of them we’d have to write a whole new bunch of legislation on how the country is run, do you really want to trust the Torys with that?
Do you really think the royal family is stopping the conservatives from doing anything though? If the royal-family spoke up about politics they'd have half the royalists leave them or the other half. Conservatives like the royals because they stand for the inheritance of estates/wealth, privilege, and old-school (white) nationalism.
Labour's right-wing just go along with them because they know the plebs like seeing their landlords throw parties and wear dresses.
I work in central London, and I can tell you that from an economic and identity standpoint the royal family is NOT a waste of money in any shape or form. Before covid, the Mall is completely surrounded by tourist of all ethnic persuasion. Summer time you can hardly get through. Because of the royals identify, and image. There is wonder and gravitas that brings tourists with fat wallets across the world to come and spend a large amount in central London, and bollster the economy.
They generate far more income than they cost. For that I have no doubt.
Thank you. I like it when people use feelings, assumptions and anecdotal evidence rather than facts. It's why I like how hard the monarchy tries to hide how wealthy they are. Information like that would just get in the way.
There's also the argument that they help diplomacy, sending a senior royal to a country can help our bargaining power.
@@geoffmcclelland2663 sometimes when you're working within a situation your eyes tells you how things go.
Just like a shop you see everyday with noone going in. You know very well it will soon go out of business.
Just like I know from walking across so many areas and seeing soo many closed or closing businesses that covid and lockdown is going to have a long and impactful dent in many industries especially traditional retail.
A brain and eyes tells you the truth without the stats
Thomas Eze brain and eyes only tell you a part of the story, go past a night club during the day and you could think it's going under, there's a reason why eye witness are one of the least reliable forms of evidence.
@@geoffmcclelland2663 the brain is there to rationalize the factor that a night club would probably not be trading in the daytime, not the best analogy to use there.... Eye witnesses btw are strong aspects of evidence, as long as they are credible. Circumstancial evidence is the least reliable....
Let's spin this with a different question:
How many tourists does France get per year despite not having a monarchy?
yea but ours would go down even further without it
@@dl4350 there's absolutely no grounds for this claim
people go to france for wine, art, food, and romance, for the uk honestly the monarchy is one of the top 3 reasons, the first time i went to the uk it was probably my major factor for tourism.
@@vincentfrimpong4665 Here are most of the major London tourist attractions you could do in a one day walk.
Start at Westminster station. London Eye is across river; Parliament, Big Ben and Westminster Abbey are across road. Walk through St James Park to Buckingham Palace. Up the Mall to Trafalgar Square. Along Haymarket to Piccadilly Circus. Through Leicester Square to Covent Garden. Down to the Strand. That is a morning's walk.
Take a double-decker bus to St Paul's. Across the Millennium Bridge to Tate Modern and Globe Theatre. Walk along South Bank or take tube from Blackfriars. Go to Tower Bridge and Tower of London.
That covers just about anything a tourist wants to see. Inly one has a real connection to the modern monarchy.
Lets spin this with a different question:
Would France get more tourists per year because its much larger, has a warm southern coast as well as a cosmopolitan capital city?
Imagine if the "firm" gets itself listed on the LSE
As an American I don’t see why it would be needed. Why waste the money? You wouldn’t even need to have current royals to keep the tourist dollars coming in. Turn Buckingham Palace into a museum you can tour, they’ll make billions turning all the old royal shit into a tourist park or set of museums. Would still get the money without the bad press you get from men like Prince Andrew.
Not to mention news value. The royal wedding, the death of the Queen, and the coronation of the King were topics that dominated even foreign news for weeks.
Or the royal lands can be seized by the new republic......
If we get rid of the monarchy do we really just hand back the crown estate? I'm fairly certain the state would hold some of it, or even all of it, either way it would likely be a negotiation and settlement deal. Also capital gains tax?
in every other crown estate and property became national property . in India , France , russia etc all property of royals became national property and got managed by country.
@@gratitude6573 Why would they be entitled to the land?
@@ayushkumar-bg1xf
Yes, but it seems unlikely to me that there would be an anti-monarchy revolution in Britain any time soon, so if the monarchy were to end, it would have to be done through different means. And that leads to different outcomes, so we can't really tell what would happen with the Crown Estates. There would probably have to be some sort of negotiation.
Don't forget that the Queen holds an official role which is that of vice-president in the USA, prime-minister in France or President in Germany, a second to the elected leader, that role is to protect the democratic process, to approve election results, to help transition power between leaders which you could see work in full force recently in the USA. That role requires and office and an official and that does not come cheap and actual may end up costing much more than the royal family current costs the UK, and every former president of Germany or vice-president in the USA is paid retirement funds in the millions each year, since the UK has a Royal for life in that position it actually is a pretty sweet deal since they don't need to pay each former official of that position.
@@drscopeify What are you talking about?! Every former German president gets an honorary income of ~200 000€ per year, not millions.
Remember, Camerons first piece of legislation in 2010 was to give the sea bed under off shore windfarms to the queen. Yes, everytime you pay your electricity bill you are donating money to the Crown
Who says they should still own the royal estate after they are dethroned?
The contract the government signed with the Royals states that they still own the land they are only giving up the profits if the monarchy was to be abolished the government couldn't just take the land as this would destabilise the economy you would have investors trying to sell off there land assets as what is to stop the government just taking land from anybody if they can take it from the royal family they would defiantly take it form people with less influence and power.
land reforms were done in most continental states that abolished royalty and landed gentry. Can be done
@@adamflohr5166 why not hold a referendum to ask if they should keep the contract or tear it? ;p
@@Riyoshi000 it was a contract with the government and the royal family the UK citizens have no impact on this. If the government brakes the contract it would find it self in trouble when creating new contracts as what is to stop them from breaking more contracts in the future.
We could hold a referendum on keeping the monarchy or not but this is about as much impact the UK citizens could have that was non-violent. The majority of UK citizens either approve of the royal family or have no interest in it either way these is very few people that want to abolish it. if it is abolished it would then have to be replaced with something else like a written constitution so it would complete disabled the country wilt this was being sorted out.
The royal family is one of the key parts of British soft power.
What soft power do they exude? Maybe some over Canada, Australia and wherever they are still ceremonial head of state
@@arthas7 much of the American population likes the royal family which secures their soft power with the british people> you also have the commonwealth which was developed by the royal family and still facilitates relationships with many former colonies. This is to say nothing of India being one of the most Angelofile nations on the planet.
@@luis06211986 on the last point, that era has long gone. The only thing on any Indian mind is to get the kohinoor back 😂
@@arthas7 lol true.
The point for me is that we will never have a fair and just society whilst the Establishment and Elitism presides. The royals are the head of the class system.
Wait if you'd abolish the monarchy what says you'd also have to give them 'their' lands? Stupid question maybe, but why not go all the way and just keep the historical buildings, lands, stop paying their expenses, and they can keep whatever's left?
@@gratitude6573 My assets weren't funded by generations of tax payers. At that point those buildings belong to the public in my eyes. The people living in them have, or should have, no political power or role outside of symbolic uses or nostalgia.
Well it would violate all property rights laws. It belongs to the ruling monarch
I personally think that the public support of the monarchy will die with the Queen.
Even tho I live in america and don't care at all what the uk waste their money on.. I gotta say that was a really high quality well done video. Good job to you and your team
The monarchy is stable respected, so even when general elections produce idiots as prime minister's, the stability remains like a security blanket. A president would cost more and as USA proved with Trump upset the stability. Yes the royals like others are rich but a small benefit when you are living in a bubble watched all the time and lose any privacy like a normal person. I am grateful to them all for accepting that life style, except for Harry of course.
@@pauledwards4333 it wasn't so much the president but the media is vicious here. Literally nothing could happen and they will make up anything to get views.
They want drama because drama=views=money.
The Royal Family is just another TOURIST ATTRACTION for England and should be valued in that manner. AS a result, the fact is the tourism that the royals generate is FAR greater than the amount spent to support the Monarchy and therefore is NOT a waste of money.
They were simply the family with the biggest army.
That is generally how history works, yes.
@@Bushflare but they act like they have this special connection to God and we're selected.
They're simply a family with genetics for a terrible hairline.
@@MatthewJBD
Because they do? I mean... at least in a religious sense the Queen is the head of the Church of England so she's essentially the CoE equivalent to the Pope.
I don't know if it's reasonable to expect secularism out of them.
Missing a key thing here, the army that won the most
@@dominatorduck65
*laughs in Longbowmen*
Yes, a waste of money, abolish this sad anachronism.
Great video can you PLEASE talk about the horrific new Crime and Police bill that gives the Home office insane new powers and curbs the right to protest?
I was talking to my husband when the queen died and he said he didn't know anything about Charles. I said that I thought he was maybe passionate about the environment and maybe Britain would lead the world in trying to save the planet for the next few decades. So then I watched his address the next day and he made it QUITE clear that he was going to immediately stop doing anything useful. It was very annoying. If they are not to use their platform for good, they are essentially fancy Kardashians, just living a reality TV show for entertainment purposes.
so you want the monarch to be political? so what happens when they make a decision you don't agree with?
The monarch is not supposed express any of their own opinions. You definitely would not be saying the same thing if you disagreed with him.
@@azza9652 USEFUL. They are just some lame reality TV show for the masses if they are not useful.
Why does the cost matter? If a dictatorship was cheaper should we go for that? The bigger question should be what is an unelected family doing at the top of a democracy?
The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy, not a Democracy.
some would say the crown estate belongs to the crown not the royal family en thus if they lose the titles they would also forefit the land to the governement
they aren't really private citizen so neither is their property private property
Well, it used to be private property, so what right have the people taking this property from them? (Although I have a big problem with anybody accumulating that amount of wealth...)
@@allthatchas even if you didn't take it, if you levied property taxes against that land they would have to sell it, a beach isn't a good property investment, especially in the UK
Even if you did do that, how would it look from an investor looking in? Do I want to invest in this country where the citizens just take away private property? They're not citizens either so would they fear the same thing? It doesn't work. You'd make a nightmare.
@@ProfessorTenebrae the crown estate belongs to the crown so upon losing the crown it is forfeit. this is completly different from taking the land of private persons or private companies. The royals would still have enough stuff & money that is not tied up in the royal estate. as long as forfeiture happens reasonably no third party would bat an eye
@@emieldhondt2536 The Crown Estate belongs to the crown because the crown is the Windsor Family. It was established by the monarchy, and before it was established all the lands in question were owned by the Windsor Family. If the monarchy and by extension, the crown was abolished, the lands owned by the crown would revert back to being owned by the Windsor Family. They just wouldn't be royals anymore.
The point you're not getting is it is like taking land and property from a private person or company, as the Windsor Family owned the lands before they were the Crown Estate, and after the Crown Estate ends they would again own them once more unless they were sold. The only reason the profits from them right now go to the government is that the British monarch surrenders those profits voluntarily. And they can stop doing so at any time they please.
Including the crown estates is pretty erroneous tbh; these estates would almost certainly be largely seized and either nationalised or sold off on the event of the royal family being abolished
You can’t nationalise a private citizens land. Imagine the precedent of ‘the government can freely take your land’, it could cause damage and breaks private property laws and even human rights to personal property... so good luck with that strategy
The Crown is not an individual. It’s a government entity.
@@callumbanthorpe523 the land isn't n privately owned, it's owned by the head of state, any republicanisation is going to inherently be a negotiation with the newly private citizen about how much state assets they will retain ownership of, it also doesn't set any sort of relevant precedence because they will be the last monarch, there's no other situation where that's likely to apply short of re-establishing a monarchy then disbanding it again
@@me6664 taking land from a private citizen because the government thinks its theirs sets a precedent. You said they were private citizens so them being ‘the last monarch’ is irrelevant
@@callumbanthorpe523 there is a real debate over whether the CE belongs to the Queen or the Crown, which aren't the same thing. In reality, if we ever became a Republic, then the estate would end up being split.
So when it comes to money, really they're just arguing over pocket change
Yes they are
I've also wondered what they would spend it on? The kids can't go see the Queen anymore so can't be that.
@@keeli5575 ... he said in the video
All the revenues are for Royal not for people of UK .so Royals are true benefits of the money.
Wrong with the exception of the duchy of cornwall all revenues are paid to the exchequer and those revenue's are worth a considerable amount more then is given through the civil list.
Being a monarchy is a huge part of the British identity. Maybe there are financial benefits and maybe geo political benefits resulting from the monarch's work as head of state, but it's the cultural identity that's most significant. The monarchy is Britain's link to its history and a cornerstone of its national identity. Any choice about whether or not to become a republic should revolve around that. Not the money.
Leave the British Royal family alone
How excactly did they come to ‘own’ so much land. If I decide to walk in to a apartment block kick in the door to an apartment and state it’s my property im pretty sure I would be arrested for theft. The crown estate is theft. And then the government takes the profits from it. Were im from thats proceeds of crime and gets you jail. Just sayin.
Then you'd have to do a wholesale rethink of property law. What would be the standard there? The monarchs of the past gave lands out to their pals that their descendants own today. Does that go too?
I'm sorry but i hate this argument that the Crowns land s=doesn't belong to them be cause they stole it. EVERYONE STOLE THE LAND ORGINALLY.
@@blankblanky5779 maybe that means all private property is illegitimate 🤔
If monarchy is abolished all the crown estate would become PUBLIC property, and all 100% of its profit could go to the NHS. Abolishing monarchy would make perfect economic sense.
No it wouldn't most of the money would go into setting up something else, the entire way the country works is based around the neutral royal family having supreme control otherwise you must give that to someone like a president, basically very little money would actually make it to the treasury and even if it did would it really go to the NHS, it would probarbly go on wallpaper... and even if it did go to the NHS it wouldnt improve the NHS anyway
When we become a republic, there is zero chance of this family being allowed to keep the crown estate for themselves like its their private property. That land will be nationalised under any reasonable process of becoming a republic. Does the crown estate hold onto any land in the republic of Ireland? Exactly.
If money's coming into question... you would need to get rid of a ton more things than a figurehead.
Like elections. Just look at costs associated with US play at democracy. Costs are astronomical and it serves who exactly?
@@OkurkaBinLadin facist
@@horiaalexbarabas1212 no. He is saying that the US canditates spend way too much on elections, which is appropriate. To become president you need exorbitant ammounts of money for campaigns.
So stop labeling people "fascist" when you don't even understand whay they are talking about.
I imagine if you were going to go through all the trouble of finally making the full transition to a republic, seizing the royal lands would be one of the options on the table. That would change the balance of their cost and contribution significantly.
But that would undermine all UK property law
@@04nbod not to mention all the businesses on those "lands" that are making all the money they pay the government like the offshore windfarms, those are private businesses doubt any of the CEO's would like to hear they and all their employees are now government employees.
And cause so much upheaval. On reputation alone. Lots of countries in the Middle East value UK due to special relationship with the monarch.
They may be expensive permanent national ambassadors but without all that wealth, they'd have no international clout as ambassadors or representatives for the nation. The wealth and status means they carry weight, when they do anything that interacts with others. They are a powerbase capable of negotiating with other powerbases around the world. There's nothing to gain by losing that.
What happens if another powerful nation or bloc of nations doesn't like the politics of the current UK leader or something he or she does? Who can speak in support of their nation then, while still being in a position of high authority? Other nations like France, Germany and Russia don't need royalty - they don't need anyone outside of or above political leaders, because they don't have the same amount of vested interests internationally as far as trade arrangements, former colonies, the Commonwealth etc. Much of Britain's historical wealth came from outside its borders, and still does.
If we fire the royals - U.K. still will be able to all of the diplomacy work it is doing now - signing trade deal agreements, international protocols etc.
Queen is not just a waste of money, she is an unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat.
@@strofikornego9408 Doesn't answer the question of how the UK would communicate with an unelected royal house of another country, which could wield great power also.
@@ReturnOfTheJ.D. we should not communicate with unelected representatives of other countries, for them we have our navy and army
Why would the UK government have to pay for the "royal families" security?
Well, France is on it's 5th Republic (interspersed with 2 empires). And as for Germany...
The point?
England is not particularly know for having calm and orderly transfers of power between monarchs. I'm not saying I think that will pose much of an issue going forward, but that's mostly because they don't have much in the way of real political power anymore, so why disrupt the gravy train.
No idea what you're trying to point out here, the First and Second ended by coup and the Third by war. The Fourth didn't end with bloodshed but by a new constitution. Those can effect any country, it's hardly a fault in the system that directly caused them.
Never heard a single person who wants to visit the UK, say it's because the royal family, they mainly talk about Big Ben, Scotland, Beatrix potter, and Jane Austen. If there is mention of royal family assets it's because their disappointed they can't go inside Buckingham palace.
So having your face printed on the national bill, all war ships named in your honor, all the key generals of the army are “lord” , therefore they pledge allegiance to you(not to the state), even the PM asks for you advice,well you can say that you are actually ruling the state from shadows.
Just amazes me how much they cost the regular citizen each year. Her funeral will cost the taxpayers around $10 mil but her worth is nearly half a billion. She should have paid for that herself and not even missed the funds. People are suffering yet they are just continuing to pile hardship on folks!!
Long live the queen
very fun game =)
She certainly is living long 😁
Not long now.
Of course, it is a waste of money and resources.. But so are a lot of so called traditions. The UK has some of the poorest areas in western Europe.
Crys in wales
Traditions are never a waste of money. They are what have got us to where we are now. That you can be thankful for. History is what differentiates our country from any others.
@@hansfromcongo6322 Traditions are what hold back progress.
@@thelightsilent wut drugs are you on the eu didn't do that
brits your so lucky and be thankful that u have only a pennies to contribute, here in thailand the monarchy was currupt and abusive, they've even not let us criticize them
Ok first of all, the moment the monarchy is abolished the Crown Estates, Palaces, Duchies, or whatever should go to the state. NOT the individuals. Its idiotic.
Your cartoon depiction of Louis XVI ( aka Louis the abbreviated ) very nearly produced a morning coffee geyser in my nasal passage.
I think while the queen is on the thrown the monarchy is safe, Charles on the other hand...
I’m a passionate monarchist and I agree to some extent. I would only accept skipping Charles if the queen herself puts it in writing ✍️.
Why not keep monarchy until Elizabeth is there. Keep her as last monarch
@@gabbar51ngh no. NO WAY. The monarchy is going no where.
@@nick-her9275 agreed
Well, I guess you (understandably) ignored one economic side of the anti-monarchy arguments: If we get rid of the royals, that does not mean that they get to keep their state as a whole, and thus, there is a way to save money and get rid of the monarchy. In fact, I'd argue that it makes little sense to get rid of them but let them keep everything they owned. The idea of republicanism is that it makes no sense to have a family that owns big part of the country (be that land or political power) "because".
They don't own anything! The people of Britain own the crown estate! The people of Cornwall own the duchy of Cornwall etcetera. The way this thoroughly anti-monarchist American sees it, let Liz die, and then let Chuckles live up to Chuckles the First's precedent!
100% agree we could just take their stuff make it public and have more profits then today.
one point in favor of the monarchy is that every republic becomes more expensive than their monarchs counterpart.
you would think it would be the opposite, but the weird thing that the last century showed us is that common people are AWFUL at spending money in things we want/leisure and spend way more in things way less effective in making us happy.
@@dinamosflams are you in some way suggesting that a monarchy limits useless spending? By which mechanism? By using the money themselves? If this is the argument, please, give me the money instead, I'll make sure to spend it smartly. If not, what is your argument? To me it seems a non sequitur: yes, some countries have misused funds, but its completely uncorrelated to them having or not having a monarchy or them having or not having a big potato plantations. Denmark spends their money well? What about Thailand? Spain?
@@goatskin4487 if we start taking their property lets start taking everyones property and make it public. We can make even more money that way.
'The Crown' is not the Royal Family. It is the government judicial, legislative and executive. The Royal Family used to be the executive part of the government but now it is ornamental.
The Crown owns the freehold to all property in the UK. You may think you own your home but legally you just have a lease. The same is true in countries like Canada where the Crown owns freehold to all land
Crown Estates would revert back to the government not the Royal Family. Parliament as the supreme body could anyway pass an Act confiscating anything owned by the Royal Family
This assumes, totally incorrectly, that in the event of the dissolution of the Monarchy, the Crown Estates would be handed over to the Windsors as private property. If that were the case, they would still own most of Ireland. In reality, the Crown Estates were turned over to the Irish government when the Republic of Ireland became independent.
Yeah, and how well would that turn out. Once the government get their hands on something that is valuable long term, they are liable to sell it off as a short term fix (like Royal Mail).
the part of the crown estate, that's speculating that the royal family would keep them. if we were to remove the monarchy, we would most likely take the land too. the economic benefits for removing the family would be even better for the uk.
I disagree - whether or not you like the monarchy they are some of the best land MANAGERS in the country. Unsurprisingly when you consider it has been their family business for 1000 years! Managing land well really isn’t that easy. And yet they have consistently made great profits whilst doing excellent conservation work and upholding extremely high animal welfare standards. In contrast the British government is legendarily terrible at managing land. Just like their North Sea territories they would have a go for a bit, lose a bucket load of money due to incompetence/inexperience before inevitably selling it off to private entities. In which case say goodbye to your current 75% of the profits and transparent financial reporting. You’ll be lucky to get 10% after they’ve smuggled it off to tax havens!
That's like saying: "Cutting my hands make me stronger!"
@@georgemcdonald8470 tell that to cornwall
@@georgemcdonald8470 well i would disagree with that, i bet it's not even the royal family who manages the land, i bet they hired people to do it for them.
There are great lands managed by the government. Most of this land would be managed the same way it was before being taken by the central government.
the royal family does not have magical powers to manage land, it's a profession and people are taught on how to do it.
The royal family inherited that land, they didn't work for it. They should not have a god given right to that land, it should owned by the public not by a wealthy family.
When people are struggling just to put food on the table, and they see the lavish lifestyle of the royals it’s hard to b sympathetic.
The land don't belong to the Royals
Good luck staking a claim to it. Only if we did to them like the French did to their monarchy
They don't belong to the people either
Technically and legally it does belong to the monarchy....
I'm from The Netherlands, we're kind of in the same boat, so I feel like I can share my opinion on this.
In theory/morally it is hard to justify a monarchy. No one deserves to be born into power (even if it's very little these days).
In practice though, it seems that our countries benefit from their monarchy and they are very harmless, so we might as well keep them around as the alternative is uncertainty.
So basically I'm a republican who tolerates monarchs 😅
Agreed! to be fair a lot of rich people are born into power! At least this family actually have some benefits.
It's not like we're living in the 1800s and we're oppressed by them. Live and let live is my view on it.
in my opinion they need to go purely from a moral perspective.
The problems are, they do have a lot of power, and they are not harmless.
@@abcxyz8116 how so? They make no decisions on the country. the queen is head of state ( nothing more than a show pony ) not the prime minister.
@@abcxyz8116 are you British?
The royal family is the safe guard and symbol of the immobility of British society.
Couldn't agree more. We need an overhaul of the class choking system we have.
The crown estate belongs to the crown and by extension the country. Not to the monarch. If Britain transitions to a Republic, why should the Royal family keep the entire estate or any of the estate for that matter?
The US secret service has a budget somewhere around 1.8 billion... security costs for the Head of State can be just as high, or higher, without a monarchy.
Yes, I remember seeing a comparison showing France paid more for their presidency than we do for the monarchy. And personally, I’m happy not to have a politician as head of state.
I think one thing that also needs to be taken into consideration is the Queen's political purposes. Rightly or wrongly, she could theoretically prevent someone from taking the office of PM and/or remove them from office. It's an interesting way that a tyrant could be stopped from seizing power in parliament.
Very good point, I see the Monarchy as our equivalent to the USA's 2A. It's a fail safe that prevents anyone in politics from gaining too much power over the people.
Crown property belongs to the Crown, not to the individual who happens to wear it. If you want republic, there's no reason why the formerly-royal family would be given a bunch of the nation's property and the profits therefrom.
It's not the cost, it is the principle of paying someone to make them feel superior to you.
they are tho
Miss Meghan and american media show us every day, that the cost of paying actual royals is worth every penny and more.
Btw. you can keep Mr. Macrón for free.
The RF are and do not act superior especially when you stay comparing to leaders in other countries and even celebrities
@@OkurkaBinLadin you can convince yourself that having hereditary jobs is fair and morally right
@@intimedal based on your evaluations
I think that the monarchy is what helps maintain the special relationship of the Commonwealth, and the political value of the strength of the commonwealth is far greater than any of those calculations
You can have good relationships between countries with no monarch in charge. The monarchy is neither necessary nor sufficient for that.
@@M4nu3l90F yeah but having 1 figurehead makes the countries have common ground to tie themselves together. Sure Britain and France hated each other but because of shared aspirations in imperialism and being in 2 major wars on the same side made them allies because they relate to one another
@@pilotpandashot I don't see why it has to be a monarch.
Canadian here. I absolutely hate the idea that there is someone who is not elected who has the power to refuse to allow democratically created laws. Are we a democracy or not? The fact it’s someone who’s not even Canadian is salt in the wound. It takes years for immigrants to get permanent residency (the step before citizenship - you need to have it a while before you can take the next step) and friends of mine who spent nearly a decade getting a permanent residency, or who’ve lived here for years, aren’t allowed to vote. We can talk about whether or not that’s good, but it’s ridiculous that people who’ve spent years doing all the right things to become Canadian aren’t allowed a single vote but at the same time someone who doesn’t even live here has the power to overturn our entire government’s decisions.
Royal family are brilliant
What bothers me the most about these people, is that they didn’t get there by merit, in other words they DID NOT EARN IT, THEY WERE BORN TO A CERTAIN MOTHER AND FATHER. They are not better than the rest of us, or more talented, or smarter. They were born to the same family that has ruled for over 1,000 years. Charles is a hipocrite, he tells the rest of us to fly commercial, while he uses private jets, a 95% increase in carbon footprint. Do you think that’s right? I like the expression “That Ain’t Right”.
10:02 just nationalize the crown estate and their other properties when you kick them out
@@connorcameronjaggs The Palace of Versailles is doing just fine
@@connorcameronjaggsThe royals do not maintain their estate. The cleaners, curators, gardeners etc are the ones who work to keep up the estates. If the lands and buildings were owned by the state, rather than the royals, nothing would have to change. The government already pays their wages.
@@connorcameronjaggs but they are profitable. The video says it
The royal family has made a market off brand recognition, the lands build up that brand but are unprofitable in their own right. In purely economic terms, the royals are one of the greatest means today to convert public goodwill back into a tangible economic force for the UK government.
The fact that the royals are profitable, at all, is incredible when you consider they are lacking in industry connections and focus mainly on land conservation and public service (aka a sinkhole for money). That’s like finding out your local wildlife conservation agency is in the black for 1 million dollars without taking on grants.
@@connorcameronjaggs Well if they’re not profitable then yes but if they’re profitable the state to maintain them as museums and why should the minor is states that are profitable be kept up in the first place
It should not be about money. The conversation should be about democracy. There is no place for a royal family in a democratic country
That is a very poor understanding of constitutional monarchy.
How does the monarchy hurt democracy when they have no real democratic power?
yet lots of democracies have monarchies. So there’s obviously something to it. Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Spain come to mind.
The country isn't democratic. We have democratic elections, used to gain consent to be governed, and we have used that to vote for governments that have sold off state assets, transferring power from democratically controlled institutions to non-democratically controlled private institutions. A country is not one thing, I don't vote for what you eat for dinner, some processes are democratic, some processes are not... the country is just the place where all this happens.
@@TeaLordTime it's a family with privileges.. it does not seem fair to me
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Yeeeeeeesssssssss
I might be biased, coming from a country that threw them off nearly 250 years ago, but “dieu et mon droit” is galling. Gauling? Either way, I know the US has problems, but I’d rather be a citizen than a subject.
Well as a proud subject of HR majesty the Queen I'd rather die for my Queen as a subject than for a pleb that a load of half whits voted in plus pleb wont be sticking round anywhere near as long as the Queen has.
they don't really control the country at all. They're a lot more like a figurehead and a symbol of Britain, rather than something that is constantly controlling you. They have little to no power and are literally just nominal leaders. In the US, you have no one who you constantly look up to for inspiration, feel passionate about, or be proud of other than your president who changes every couple of years and is much more divisive in the way US citizens feel about him, rather than uniting and representing the country as a whole. Which is what the Queen does.
I think you missed the obvious. The Royal Estate could be ceased and nationalized. The claim the royals have for the position of head of state is as dodgy as the claim for most of the estate.
also like, if the palaces are still there when the royalty is gone you can still go in and be a tourist, just look at all the german castles or bloody any other historical building in any other country, its usually open for tourists while not having a monarchy.
Seize the land!!!!! It is the people's land, for a people's republic.
Obviously we’d confiscate their land and give it back to the people, too. You don’t get to stop being the monarch to “just” be the wealthiest family in the country. We cut you a deal, you each get a lump sum of cash and you’re exiled forever. Considering what happened to Charles 1st, I’m sure Charles 3rd would count himself lucky.
I think there is a great deal of value in holding onto Britain's ancient culture and the Royals are deeply intertwined with that.
People put a negative slant on the crown due to Britain's expansionist past, however at the height of it's power Britain was already a Democracy. With the Monarch having little say in what wars were fought and what lands were taken.
Australia was, for lack of a better word, conquered in 1788. But it isn't as if King George III ordered the first fleet to set sail in his name. By then England was ruled by Parliament and had been for 139 years.