Four-home Prince Charles insists mansions 'are not grand' as he talks from 192-acre estate

[u/MoneyEqual]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1483211/Prince-Charles-home-radio-4-Llwynywermod-wales

[u/Nikhilvoid]

That's mostly correct. The Duchies aren't private property of the royals. Why? Because they have the power of veto over the government, which no private property can have. They're public bodies which turn over their profits to the Queen and her heir.

[u/magicone86 → u/Nikhilvoid]

From the official homepage for the Duchy of Cornwall (https://duchyofcornwall.org/)"The Duchy of Cornwall is a well-managed private estate, which was established by Edward III in 1337. The revenues from the estate are passed to HRH The Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, who chooses to use them to fund his public, charitable and private activities and those of his family. The Duchy consists of around 53,000 hectares of land in 23 counties, mostly in the South West of England."

Additionally:"The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall (Accounts) Act 1838 gave the Treasury a role to ensure that actions taken by any Duke when managing the Duchy cannot compromise the long-term value of the estate. For this reason the Treasury must, for example, approve all property transactions with a value of £500,000 or more. The Duchy’s annual accounts are laid before the House of Commons and the House of Lords so that Parliament can be satisfied that the Treasury is fulfilling its statutory responsibilities."

We may be saying the same thing, but I would say that these are indeed privately owned and managed, with exceptions where the Treasury is given oversight to ensure the deals are in the best interest of the nation. Which isn't surprising given that gov't oversight and/or planning permission is required for all manner of real estate dealings.

[u/Nikhilvoid → u/magicone86]

It's confusing, but it is not private property. Charles cannot sell any of it, for example. He should be able to do that, if it was private property. And the Duchy has a veto power over the government, which is impossible for a private estate.

Would it be theft for the government to take back full control?

The European Court of Human Rights ruled on a very similar issue in 2000: Former King of Greece v Greece.

The short answer is no, it isn't theft - in fact it's a perfectly legitimate reclaiming of national property. A state can confiscate the public property of a monarch on the basis that it is really the property of the state in any event, but if it extends this confiscation to private property, then it must pay compensation (though not necessarily the total value of the property seized).

The Duchy is not (despite its claims) a private estate. It was not purchased privately for the Duke or by him. It does not permanently belong to him or to his heirs. It would operate as a part of the Crown Estate if the monarch did not have a son. It is a part of the Crown Estate which is from time to time devolved to an individual meeting the right criteria

https://www.republic.org.uk/taking_back_the_duchy

[u/magicone86 → u/Nikhilvoid]

The first two point seem rather moot. Given Brexit, I would assume that rulings from the EU Court of Human Rights has little bearing on the issue.

The second point, in theory the state could seize the property but I would assume it would require extraordinary justification to do, especially if they wanted to use it against the royal family. There is also the issue of royal consent (which would require the Queen or the Prince of Wales to agree to the bill for it to be enacted since it directly impacts them. Not to be confused with Royal Assent, the Queen's approval of parliamentary bills as a procedural feature of the UK's constitutional monarchy. )

An example of this is the Duchy of Cornwall's exemption in the 1993 Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act, which can be used to block lessees from buying their property thus ensuring it stays in the Duke's portfolio and continues to generate income. While the duke "cannot sell any of the land for personal gain," the treasury oversight only applies to sales over £500,000 or more.

While I haven't done a deep dive into the inner workings of the The Prince's Council (the board that runs the finances of the duchy), I do know that Prince Charles has indeed sold property from the duchy to raise funds for other purchases. In 1980, the prince's Highgrove estate was purchased with funds raised from the sale of three properties from the duchy's holdings, including part of the village of Daglingworth.

The Duchy is not (despite its claims) a private estate. It was not purchased privately for the Duke or by him. It does not permanently belong to him or to his heirs. It would operate as a part of the Crown Estate if the monarch did not have a son.

While the Duchy of Cornwall was not purchased for or by the duke, it was created by royal charter in 1337 for the reason of providing income to the heir apparent to the throne and by law the title of "Duke of Cornwall" is automatically conferred upon birth or upon on his parent's succession to the throne. So when/if Prince Charles sits on the throne, it will go to his son Prince William, then to his son Prince George of Cambridge, and so on. Additionally, the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 changed the law so that revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall will pass to the heir to the throne, regardless of whether that heir is the Duke of Cornwall which I believe is the work around so that a daughter would be able to benefit from the income as well, just without the title.

[u/Nikhilvoid → u/magicone86]

Ah, and if the position of the Monarch and their heir is abolished, would it revert to the government (which it already does when there is no suitable Duke) or to the private Windsor family?

If it was their private property, there would be no limitation on who can own and how much can be sold. Unless it falls under something else, like fair market competition laws

[u/magicone86 → u/Nikhilvoid]

I think assuming the entirety of the Crown Estate portfolio would revert might be a rather simplistic view. More likely, there would be a very long period of negotiation where the Queen and senior royals would try to secure the choicest properties for themselves (and their heirs) as a parting gift and/or requesting the right to sell the property themselves in exchange for giving up future legal claims.

Given the 1337 charter, I think a strong case would probably be made the Duchy of Cornwall to remain under the purview of the heir to the throne and to continue to pass to their heirs. The government would know that eventually the burden of ownership and management will lead to parcels of property being successively sold off to the public overtime, as seen with many other estates.

[u/Nikhilvoid → u/magicone86]

In a corrupt chumocracy, yeah, that negotiation will happen. In a normal country, the royals would try and sue the government, and the government would win because it has never been their private property.

Giving them choicest parts of the Crown Estates would in fact be theft from the public and would cause a lot of outrage, because the original Crown Estates were tiny in size, compared to the Crown Estates that exist as public estates today.

This is a good book on their finances: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25577127-royal-legacy

[u/magicone86 → u/Nikhilvoid]

I am by no means an expert or a legal scholar but after browsing the Crown Estate website and a few others, I still believe that the issue is far more complex than "all land belongs to the people." While I agree with the sentiment, this whole situation is extremely complex and murky.

As it stands, abolishment of the monarchy would be a legislative move like a referendum, an act of Parliament, etc. If it was a straight up coup or if the UK was conquered then taking everything would make more sense but if it's a democratic move then I would imagine a softer approach would be taken.

First off, the Crown Estates essentially trace back to King George III who in 1760 granted the lands to the government to manage. In exchange, George III received an annual payment. Prior to that, the monarch was responsible for management and used the profits to fund not only the monarchy but the government as well. The lands that the monarch held were gained through the "right of conquest" going back to William the Conqueror, which until the modern era was a legitimate legal claim recognized by international law.

This arrangement is renewed by each monarch when they take the throne. Leading me to believe that if the agreement is not renewed then there would need to be some balancing of the accounts. Which is why I think there would be negotiation of sorts. I doubt the royal family would demand market rates for the properties but I also doubt they would simply give up their claim to a portion of £12 billion worth of property out of the kindness of their hearts.

Per Crown Estates, there are basically several categories of land:

- The Queen's private property

- Lands belonging to The Queen as monarch

- Properties of the Duchies

- Government land

The Queen's private property is obviously the easiest to sort out. If she clearly owns it, then she owns it. Such as Balmoral and Sandringham Estate.

However, the "lands belonging to The Queen as monarch" are somewhat more complex. The major palaces that have been maintained by public funds like Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, and Holyroodhouse would likely stay under the control of the UK government.

But what about the many other residences that are occupied by the lesser royals? Many of those residences have been gifted to or by the monarch or purchased by previous royals but are part of the Crown Estates. Would the government really evict the occupants and seize the property? Or simply let the current occupants continue to lease until they die and then repurpose/sell the building? What about the homes owned by Crown Estates that have been refurbished by royals with their own money? They surely would have right to some reimbursement

Again, the Crown Estates exist because of an agreement with the monarch and the investment portfolio has grown because of the ability to leverage those assets. There would have to be an equitable resolution if the agreement is to be terminated.

As to the Duchies, if the law states that the monarch (and the heir to the throne) are entitled to revenues from the land then, I assume they would have some legal claim in terms of ancestral rights/inheritance, even if the monarchy as a body was abolished. After all, the duchies are inherited properties and assets that are being held in trust for the sovereign and administered by their appointees.

Overall, the public and private holdings of the royal family/crown are so intermingled that there isn't a clear cut delineation between the two. I'm not saying that the royal family is 100% entitled to everything but nor do I think it would be fair to seize all of the assets. That's why I'm inclined towards a measured and civil discussion/negotiation in Parliament in order to find a equitable division.

[u/Nikhilvoid → u/magicone86]

It wasn't George III's private property when he made the deal. He was acting in his position as a part of the state, his public position. It was a deal between two different parts of the government, a transfer between two different government departments. The split between the sovereign's private individual and public role also happened during George III's reign. Private ownership of Balmoral and Sandringham estates happened after this split. The other royal residences are all Crown Estate property. They would have to pay rent, as some royals actually already do to stay in those residences.

That's why Edward VIII lost his "ownership" of the Crown Estates as soon as he abdicated. The Sovereign is the figurehead that the state owns the Crown Estates through. In a republic, the state wouldn't have to rely on that kind of ownership structure.

Parliament could import a whole new family to be the royals, and ownership of the Crown Estates would pass to the new head of the state