Eugenie moving into Kensington Palace

Who owns them then Annie I thought Crown Properties were owned by the monarch and were theirs because of. Their status as opposed to private homes and money the monarch may have acquired and can do with as they wish.

None of the land in britain belonged to the monarch originally, it was common land then the enclosure acts allowed the local bigwigs to fence it all off, so they could look after it, i.e. control it. Then they introduced Toll Costs.

I think the whole idea of a monarchy is crazy, if the man from the moon came down & we said we keep one family in total luxury with a large lump sum + staff etc. They'd think we were mad. It must be psychologically bad for them too.

I don't think we need a monarch & I think the republican movement is growing.

Welshwife, the queen cannot sell Buck house, Kensington palace or Windsor , suppose you could class them as tied cottages,

All very fashionable but would we rather have president May or Corbyn - not sure it would bring as many tourists and income as the royal family do. Of course, it's all nonsense but we do it well in this country (pomp and pageantry) Eugenie didn't ask to be born into the family but has to deal with it including the massive interest in her life. Most of the minor royals have jobs including William but they still have to attend functions and represent the Queen who at 90 deserves a bit of time off. They have to be protected because they are targets.
They are like any other family with their ups and downs and I admire their courage and work ethic.

Just thinking what a grumpy lot you Gransnetters are and then spotted cavaliermum's response - you restored my faith in old codgers!!!

Probably if the queen stood to be titular head of state in an election she would win - fair enough. She could still live in her tied palaces. It's not the same as a prime minister with political power. Can't see a problem with that. Lots of other countries do this. I don't think you can rationally support a hereditary monarchy these days. USA seems to have had several presidents from the same families but at least they were elected.

Anniebach: Kensington Palace, St James palace and Windsor castle are not the queens property

Even if the Crown Estates income was passed to the government in the reign of George III the monarch clearly retained the right to allocate houses and appartments on the Crown estates and in the royal palaces. Given the position of the monarchy and the structure of society at the time I think it would have been strange if any other arrangements had been made. I suppose the Queen could move a few homeless families into KP if she wanted to but imagine the outcry...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_Palace

Kensington Palace is a royal residence set in Kensington Gardens, in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in London, England. It has been a residence of the British Royal Family since the 17th century, and is the official London residence of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, and Prince and Princess Michael of Kent.
Today, the State Rooms are open to the public and managed by the independent charity Historic Royal Palaces, a nonprofit organization that does not receive public funds.[2] The offices and private accommodation areas of the Palace remain the responsibility of the Royal Household and are maintained by the Royal Household Property Section.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Households_of_the_United_Kingdom

The Royal Households of the United Kingdom are the collective departments which support members of the British Royal Family. Many members of the Royal Family who undertake public duties have separate households. They vary considerably in size, from the large Royal Household which supports the Sovereign to the household of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry, with fewer than ten members. The lesser households are funded from the Civil List annuities, paid to their respective royal employers for their public duties, and all reimbursed to HM Treasury by the Queen.

According to this paper: tinyurl.com/zlk9uoh the Sovereign Grant is 15% of the income from the Crown Estates. As the grant is about £30million I make it that the actual income from the Crown Estates is about £200million p.a. (which goes to the Treasury). Without spending any more time googling I suspect that the balance which the Treasury retains is more than enough to cover activities (detailed in the linked pdf) which are not funded from the Sovereign Grant. So I would still contend that the taxpayer does not fund the Queen or the activities of more obscure members of the royal family.

I'm not particularly defending the Monarchy, though I'd much rather have the Queen than Donald Trump, I just think we should get our facts straight. I think that the question of why people should be extremely wealthy through no effort of their own (which applies to far more people than just the Queen and the royal family) is a completely different (and historically interesting) issue.

Now that IS really interesting and informative MaizieD unlike the entirely boring non-event that Eugenie is moving into KP.
Does anybody REALLY care?

I care deeply.

None of the land in britain belonged to the monarch originally, it was common land then the enclosure acts allowed the local bigwigs to fence it all off

Sorry, but you are completely wrong about this. 'Common land' was part of the lands owned by the Lord of the Manor, who owned all the land in the Manor; having been given the Lordship (i.e the land) by the monarch. The tenants of the manor had 'rights of common' over land designated 'common land', usually rights to graze a certain number of animals, to take firewood or peat, to take stone for buildings etc. These rights did not extend to anyone outside the Manor.

The history of land ownership is complex but it originates mostly in the Norman Feudal System; a system based on the theory that the monarch initially 'owned' all the land in the country.

Fsct is all these estates were not purchased , thry were given to friends of royals for sleeping with their daughters/ lapping up their flattery etc. No one gave the land to the royals, thry just took it

I must confess, DaphneBroon, that I don't really care. I just didn't like the tone of the indidgnant posts

No one gave the land to the royals, thry just took it

True, AnnieB. And a lot of it was given to the monarch's followers who helped them take the land and who supplied the men for their armies to help them retain the land. But I don't think we can unpick 1,000 or so years of history without a bloody revolution (France, Russia, anyone?) And even revolutions just produce another hierarchy of winners and losers.

Maybe a bit off subject but I read about the Royal archives the other day, apparently they have accumulated many people's papers and these are not available to the general public unless they are given special permission. I can understand for Royal family secrets but other peoples? Doesn't seem right!

Very true! If the state grabs Buckingham Palce and the other royal residences, what would become of them? I can imagine they might be snapped up by oligarchs from Russia or China or maybe a Saudi prince. I prefer that the Crown Estate looks after them.

I Googled 'royal residences' and was amazed how many of them there are...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_royal_residences

Some have disappeared, but others are run by trusts or charities and rely on tourists, grants and commercial operations such as conferences. On balance, they're not really much benefit to the 'common man'.

PS. My post was @ MaizieD "even revolutions just produce another hierarchy of winners and losers."

Given that none of the present Royal family are really descended from feudal kings but are German immigrants asked over when we needed a monarch they have no rights to any land. And maybe now we are leaving the EU we should send them back.

@trisher

One of my gt grandfather's sisters worked in the household of one of Queen Victoria's many grandchildren for 44 years. When I was doing family history research, I wrote to the Royal Archives for any information about her. They didn't have any letters or diaries, but they were very helpful and I managed to work out where my ancestor had been, which jobs she did, etc.

I think the point is that these are private records and, therefore, not covered by usual disclosure rules (or whatever they're called). I guess if my ancestor had kept a diary, she might have written something about the Royal family they would rather not have disclosed.

@ trisher

I don't know enough about property law to comment.

Nice try, trisher

German George I was the son of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, granddaughter of Charles I. Had to keep the bloodlines right And Protestant, of course.

I believe there are some descendents of James II still in France. Perhaps we should invite them back?

True trisher, the present royals are more German and Greek than British

But they're still EU Nationals and have a perfect right to live here until Mrs May decides what to do about EU Nationals currently settled in the UK...

Hoi Anniebach I seem to remember that another Gran and I said that we'd donate the amount you said the Royal family cost us per annum (60p but we upped it to £1) to a homeless person on condition you'd stop going on about the Royal family! Are we now due our money back?!

No, you all have it wrong!
The true king is Australian - Simon Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun, descendent of George Plantagenet, who was the younger brother of King Edward IV - who was allegedly illegitimate so should not have ascended the throne.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Abney-Hastings,_14th_Earl_of_Loudoun

I have the same aversion to middle class guilt as you have to royalty. Difference is you assume you have the moral highground.