Messages

166

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Alexandra's Personality Traits - Good & Bad

« on: February 04, 2009, 11:44:04 AM »

The problem is that Alix didn't really "love" the real "Russia" rather like her husband she was in "love" with a mythical medieval muscovy. There are also surviving letters and opinions from her own family (not just the Romanov family) who are pretty explicit in their view of Alix and her part in things as has already been mentioned.

167

The Windsors / Re: King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (nee Bowes Lyon)

« on: February 01, 2009, 02:25:01 AM »

The Cake was reputedly coined by the Duchess of Devonshire - others included - Grinners - a favourite with beaton and a few of his set i  think from memory (hence their nickname for the ocean liner the Queen Elizabeth - the Grinning Lizzie

168

The Windsors / Re: King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson (Duke and Duchess of Windsor)

« on: January 26, 2009, 12:46:13 PM »

Even after all these years I think it is still difficult to find a fair account of the abdication and the subsequent relationship between the Windsors and the rest of the Royal Family. Of all the characters involved we've only ever had the actual accounts of the Windsors in their memoirs which to be fair aren't the most reliable historical records but nor should they be entirely ignored.
As far as the family were concerned i think it would be fair to say that they preferred to overlook "dear David's" failings and preferred instead to blame Wallis for his behaviour and the abdication.
The rift between the two sides - based on their surviving letters and the recollections of most courtiers involved with both sides - sugests that the fault lay on both sides. Edward's obsession with money and his determination to maintain his lifestyle to avoid suggestions that he'd lost "caste" by abdicating and then marrying Wallis (hence his incessant demands over form, his obsession with the HRH issue and his general fear of taxation, his desire for maintaining some kind of public profile hence his ill advised trip to Germany and speech from Verdun ahead of George VI's departure for Canada and America) on the other side George VI's determination that Wallis should not be HRH, his fear of being overshadowed by his brother, his desire for them not to return, his anger over his brother's behaviour in exile and his fury over what he considered his brother's lies over their financial agreements (which dated back to George V's will and the fact that Edward VIII didn't disclose his private savings when his brother promised him an allowance after the abdication).
To answer the question about the influence of Queen Elizabeth - she certainly had considerable influence on her husband (despite the image she preferred to present to the world) and there is enough evidence to suggest that she disliked Wallis (like Queen Mary and most of the Royal Family they were convinced his behaviour was all "that womans" fault) - I don't believe as has been often posited that she "hated" her. I don't doubt that the Queen as Duchess of York was possibly aware of how Wallis and David referred to her, but I suspect that if she had known she wouldn't have been as angry as her husband (who adored his wife) and Elizabeth was also known to have a certain fondness for the odd bitchy comment herself. Granted in the early years of their reign Elizabeth was determined to keep them as far away as possible (she was perhaps more aware than most of how the Duke's brothers had always admired him, feared the effect of how her husband would be compared to the Duke if they returned and she is on record as being rather uncharitable towards the Duchess), but to blame the Queen for the entire attitude of the court and government isn't accurate. It was their new Prime Minister Chamberlain who was most disgusted with the Duke of Windsor over the financial settlement and his subsequent behaviour, and even the Windsors' old ally Churchill quickly fell out with the Duke after he assumed the premiership over his demands and behaviour during and just after the fall of France and his subsequent behaviour in the Caribbean. Most people who knew the late Queen Elizabeth suggest that whilst she certainly didn't like or approve of Wallis she didn't hate her (most of those quoted on this did know the Queen well and weren't at all unwilling to criticise her behaviour).
I think someone mentioned the family scrabbling around to try and get back "royal" items that David had given Wallis - the only person who seems to have carried on "dropping" in was Louis Mountbatten and its highly unlikely that it was at either the Queen or the Queen Mother's suggestion - in fact one of the few things that the Queen Mother and Wallis agreed on was a shared distrust of "Dickie" Mountbatten.

Over time these kind of things become myths don't they - there's an element of truth in all the oft repeated arguements about the abdication and its aftermath - but it's not necessarily the truth.

169

The Windsors / Re: King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson (Duke and Duchess of Windsor)

« on: January 19, 2009, 11:21:07 AM »

George VI and Edward VIII only ever really trusted their wives and as Eric says did indeed choose women who were quite maternal and were strong individuals in their own right, perhaps looking for the strong female support they perhaps felt was lacking in their own mother. In George VI case it was exemplified very much in the happy, contented family unit that resembled his wife's childhood rather than his own.
As has been said Lady Airlie (who was very close to the royal family) didn't think of them as particularly cruel or neglectful just lacking in any real understanding of children. York Cottage was dominated by George V his prejudices and his opinons and an obsession with behaving in the "right" or "correct" way and it certainly had an appalling effect on the behaviour and characters of all his children. The Queen with her strong sense of duty and devotion to the British crown appears to have always given way to her husband whether she considered him right or wrong. The idea that she was cold and unmaternal is that she clearly had a disaste for the whole business of pregnancy and childbirth unlike say the Empress Frederick and Queen Alexandra.
The thing about this that is perhaps most odd is that both George V and Queen Mary were themselves the products of homes dominated by very loving and affectionate mothers so its rather bizarre that they turned out to be poor parents to their own.

170

The Windsors / Re: King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson (Duke and Duchess of Windsor)

« on: January 15, 2009, 10:44:34 AM »

Eric I don't doubt for one minute that the King had considerable support from ordinary people. There are numerous letters in the Windsor Archives and the PRO from people about it expressing their support and most people had had quite enough of Baldwin and his ageing government. But those letters and records are not a majority. Public opinion had had little time to form given that the British Press had censored any mention of Mrs Simpson until the Bishop of Bradford's "recall to religion" speech (widely misinterpreted as an attack on Edward VIII's relationship with Wallis) and that the subsequent crisis lasted such a short time in the public spotlight. It is therefore difficult to get an accurate portrayal of public opinion.
On the other hand we also have the "number" of unpleasant letters that the Duchess of Gloucester received after she and the Duke met the Windsor's in France in 1938 (another attempt to test public opinion).
It is also worth bearing in mind that for twenty years the British public (and the greater public in the dominions) had been treated to newspaper and newsreel reports that were glowing in their flattery of the Prince of Wales and glossed over everything that showed him in a rather less flattering way (which is why so many of his own and his father's courtiers didn't think much of him). His fondness for other men's wives (Freda Dudley Ward and Thelma Furness spring to mind) his pleasure in Cafe Society and his rather low boredom threshold (which for a future King Emperor was a problem - given that the role largely embraces a life of ritual boredom) had all made his parents, the court and significant sections of the government doubt his sincerity and his understanding of the constitutional role he was expected to fill.

On a personal note when we were doing this at school (more years than i care to remember) our teacher asked us to visit our elderly relatives who'd lived through the thirties and ask them about a variety of topics from the depression, to appeasement, to the abdication and the outbreak of war. My grandmother and her sisters  who in the thirties were young women living in Yorkshire were still 50 years later utterly opposed to the idea that their King should marry a divorcee - true we found a more diverse range of opinions when we visited a local Old People's home. I suspect that opinion was far more divided than official records allow.

I have little doubt that quite a number of politicians were glad to see the back of Edward VIII - the released records of Baldiwn's conversations with the King do suggest that Baldwin pushed him into a position where Edward was forced to tell the prime minister he intended to marry Mrs S, when she were free, therefore obliging him to accept his Government's advice on the matter. However it is also clear that Edward up to the last was prepared to use unconstitutional methods to get his own way on the matter - there was a lack of trust on both sides which were hampered by Baldwin's rigid view (backed by his cabinet) that the public wouldn't accept a "Queen with two living husbands" and Edward's view "that his private life was his private life". The Cabinet and Baldwin's attitude had been hardened by the way in which Edward behaved in his official duties following his father's death - his late hours, his obvious boredom on official occassions, his preferrences for certain foreign dignitaries over others, his dictats about foreign policy, the way he treated his staff, the way he'd treated his father's servants etc - all of that to a certain extent undermined and weakened his position as king when it came to the issue of marrying Mrs Simpson.

Was it a tragedy that he was forced to abdicate - we'll never really know what kind of King he would have made or what kind of Queen, Wallis would have made - no children though which would have made his reign almost pointless - his brother might have lived long enough to succeed him without the pressures of the Second World War which encouraged him to smoke and drink more either way his eventual heir would have been the present Queen. He had many strong points as did she - neither of them were particularly intellectual though and Edward like the rest of his family could suffer from extreme prejudices. One problem would have been the area of foreign policy in the lead up to the Second World War, he'd received a dressing down from his father over interferring in politics by giving a speech saying the Germans should be "our friends" a few years earlier, though I don't share the idea that either of them were particularly pro-nazi though he was pro-german. (dating to his visit to Germany in 1913 and like many of his generation a determination to avoid a repeat of the carnage of the 1st World War.) We might have had less pomp and circumstance a bit less of the archaic traditions of his father's court, but we'd have had a few redecorations of the Royal Palaces and a more Cafe Society circle than the Aristocratic Country House style of court that George VI and Queen Elizabeth created for themselves.

171

The Windsors / Re: King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson (Duke and Duchess of Windsor)

« on: January 14, 2009, 09:15:56 AM »

Support for Edward VIII and his wish to marry Mrs Simpson did exist in large numbers amidst the populace as some released records have shown. However Edward's popularity as Prince of Wales and as King was a combination of his own talents in public (he was like his sister in law very good with people) and in his last weeks as King largely whipped up by the Beaverbrook press (who were anti Stanley Baldwin). It would be interesting to know how the unemployed miners and their families he visited in Wales would have felt if far from "summoning his ministers" and insisting "something must be done" on his return to London he was busy ordering yet more jewellery for Wallis and telling dinner party guests he "approved of splendour".

There is a problem with a fair assessment of him at this period because so many of his courtiers disapproved of him. Whilst his own section of society (Lady Cunard and her circle for example) adored him, another perhaps more traditional part of society deplored his behaviour (sacking his father's servants and behaving badly in their view). Whilst his tendency to modernity was admirable his other faults put almost everyone at court and in Government against him.

The main problem wasn't Mrs Simpson's character or her behaviour (the only people who really objected to her personally where the King's family - who didn't like the way she behaved towards him) it was the fact that she was twice divorced and that divorce still carried a deep social stigma.

Divorcee's weren't received at court and they couldn't remarry in the Church. Edward VIII was not only Head of the Church of England, but he ruled an Empire which still included Roman Catholic Ireland and Canada and Australia both with significant Roman Catholic populations - Baldwin was never able to make him see the problems he might cause by marrying a divorcee.

Once Edward determined to marry Wallis - even his supporters like Churchill urged him against it - and told Baldwin his intentions he had to act on the advice of his ministers and they were almost all opposed at home and abroad.  The Dominion telegrams whilst their opinions might have been directed by Baldwin were pretty clear - in fact the Australian Prime Ministers view was that it had gone too far and even if he would give Wallis up he'd damaged the monarchy so much he still should abdicate.

Personally I've always believed that the utterly spoilt and indulged man he was, he thought up to the last moment he could marry her and make her Queen Consort and Empress of India. But i've also thought the idea that he was forced by the cabinet into abdicating was myth, the chaos of the final weeks of the crisis don't suggest that the Government was "jockeying" him out of his throne - whilst granted that has largely been the arguement both the Windsors used in their memoirs, the same way they preferred to put the blame for their subsequent treatment on the two Queen's Mary and Elizabeth and depicting George VI as hen-pecked (rather ironic given the way the Duchess treated the Duke).
His subsequent behaviour was what largely destroyed his relationship with his family, though its true that his mother in particular could never understand why her son was willing to put his personal desires ahead of his duties and responsibilities as King.

172

The Imperial Family / Re: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna

« on: January 06, 2009, 05:41:05 AM »

No problem Susanna that's the problem with postings rather than a conversation I certainly didn't mean any offence.

To be fair to Maria I suspect her "pushiness" is in part the fact that over the past few years we've seen several former monarchies invite or permit their former monarch's or their heirs to return (Serbia and Roumania for example) and have granted them some kind of semi-official status - which presumably is what she is hoping for in the long run. I think in many ways its probably harder for her to surrender those hopes and behave differently given her family have spent nearly 90 years insisting that they were the senior line and to be fair with the exeption of Prince Nicholas' grand father and great uncle the dynasty did accept both Kyril and Vladimir as claimants. It was only in the 1960's that the remaining dynasts finally broke with Vladimir and to be fair it was largely his own fault.

As to the rest of the family I think most of them accepted a long time ago that the chance of any kind of restoration was fairly thin and they've got on with their own lives as you say behaving with dignity and emphasising that such matters as restoration rests with the Russian People as Michael Alexandrovitch stated in his 1917 manifesto.

As to the British Queen - I've very rarely seen her seated when she greets someone, it would be impolite to stay seated even if her position as monarch meant she could, but I could be wrong who knows.

You mentioned the status of the Vladimirovichi before 1917 - and it is an interesting one. I am no great expert but from everything I have read it would be difficult to argue that the Vladimirovichi were not regarded as dynasts prior to 1917.

Whilst it would be unthinkable for an Empress Consort or the wife of the heir to the throne not to have been Orthodox at their marriage I believe the Pauline Law only requires the wife of the heir to be Orthodox - when Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovitch married Marie Pavlovna he was fourth in line to the throne (behind his brother and his nephews Nicholas and George) - as he had consent to marry her and their children were all listed as dynasts I don't think her lack of conversion until later life would affect their rights.

As to Kyril's marriage - at the time of his marriage he was also fourth in line (after Alexei, Michael and his father Vladimir), true the Orthodox Church did not permit first cousins to marry, however other Romanov's had married first cousins, I also believe that in the case of such a marriage taking place the Russian Church doesn't regard the marriage as invalid. The Tsar was head of the church prior to 1917, Nicholas II in eventually recognising Kyril's marriage arguably dispensed any impediment to the marriage. He granted Victoria Melita the style Imperial Highness and Grand Duchess of Russia - their two daughters born before the revolution were listed in the court calendar as dynasts with the style Her Highness and Princess of Russia (as great granddaughters of a sovereign) and Victoria had converted to Orthodoxy long before the birth of her son Vladimir.

There is in one issue that would negate the relevance of morganatic marriages that i have recently read and would therefore arguably dismiss Maria Vladimirovna's claims to be the daughter of the last dynast - the fact that Nicholas II abdicated in favour of his brother Michael Alexandrovitch a Grand Duke who was in a morganatic marriage (which up to that point Nicholas clearly regarded as making his brother inelligable for the throne - just as Alexander I had regarded his brother Constantine's marriage in 1820 as making him inelligable to succeed him). You could at a stretch argue that Nicholas effectively abolished the equal marriage rule by his abdication in favour of Michael but of course Nicholas' abdication in favour of Michael is still disputed by those who adhere strictly to the Fundamental Rules. If that act did put an end to it then it would mean that the Russian Succession or claims would pass first to the male line Vladimirichi, thence to the Illyinsky decendants of Grand Duke Dimitri, thence to Prince Nicholas and his brother, thence to the Mikhailovichi (the descendants of Grand Duke Alexander and Grand Duchess Xenia) and only then to the senior surviving female dynast.

173

The Russian Revolution / Re: The Russian Revolution - Causes and/or Prevention?

« on: January 02, 2009, 04:46:51 AM »

To save the Russian Monarchy you would have probably needed to change the last two crowned Emperors or have let Alexander II live longer. His premature death meant an end to any liberal reform, his son Alexander III was a convinced autocrat and surrounded by people who shared that view. Had Alexander II lived long enough to institute some form of constitution then the monarchy might have been salvageable. Alexander III was reactionary believing in orthodoxy, nationalism and the preservation of autocracy, out of sympathy with the slightly more liberal views of his father. He held the country together through his relative intelligence, capacity for delegation and his imposing personality. Nicholas II would have probably made an admirable constitutional monarch if he'd inherited a different throne but his own personal determination to reign as an autocrat hurled his country towards revolution.

174

The Imperial Family / Re: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna

« on: December 29, 2008, 09:49:24 AM »

Susana
I didn't think any of my posts were particularly critical - ironically I tend to share your clear distaste for the Vladimirovichi line. However the Pauline Laws (as incorporated into the 1906 fundamental rules of the Russian Empire as amended prior to 1917) are pretty clear on the rules I was merely explaining why Maria and Leonida hold the view they do and also why Prince Nicholas holds the view he does, if that came across as rude or offensive then naturally i apologise.

Paul didn't exclude women from the succession. He adopted the system that had been adopted by the Hapsburgs - semi salic - succession through the male line only but in the event of the extinction of the male line the throne would pass to the senior female dynast and thence to all her heirs in the same manner.
As far as I understand - The current and long standing arguement centres on two distinct views - 1) the vladimirovichi's view that a) Leonida's marriage to Vladimir was valid  and b) that on Vladimir's death in 1992 there were no surviving male dynasts.2) The view of Prince Nicholas that a) the Ukase of 1911 on marriages of members of the dynasty DOES permit marriages of Prince's of the Blood to women of non-corresponding rank and that b) that the offspring of such marriages are Russian Dynasts - in which case on the death of Vladimir Kyrilovitch  - Prince Nicholas became the senior male dynast of the House of Holstein Gottorp Romanov. 
I've tried in my posts to explain the reasons behind those views and how they relate to a strict reading of the Pauline Laws, the Fundamental Rules of the Russian Empire and the varying Imperial Ukases relating to them.
As to the issues surrounding Elizabeth II - as I stated she's actually never made any comment on the matter, nor does her opinion matter in connection with the rules of the now defunct Russian Empire. I may have misquoted the meeting which i understand took place at a Faberge Exhibition and that she stood up on being introduced to him - but i wouldn't necessarily read that as an acknowledgement, I've been in a room where The Queen stood on being introduced to someone who had no Royal claims whatsoever. Nicholas Romanov is undoubtedly head of the Family Association but my understanding is that whilst he claims he is the senior member of the family and dismisses Maria's claims he has never claimed to be de jure Emperor unlike Maria.  I think one point worth bearing in mind is that Nicholas and his brother and other members of the family association tend to feature more in official functions relating to the Romanov's such as the reburials in St Petersburg whereas Maria tends to feature more in religious events in Russia etc which I think is interesting though has no bearing on the rights and wrongs of either side though.

175

The Imperial Family / Re: Romanovs and Faith/Orthodox Religion

« on: December 29, 2008, 08:18:31 AM »

As I am not Orthodox I wouldn't wish to offend those who are - I think that rehabilitation is a different issue to the religious questions personally I do believe that the whole family were victims of Bolshevik repression (I think Nicholas's situation is different because of his status as monarch and he must bear some responsibility for what was done in his name - however he never had any form of trial and therefore technically he was also a victim)

You said -
"Nicholas didn't refuse to leave Russia because he wanted to stay with wife and children -- there was a chance for all members of IF to escape. It is as I said -- love to their country, where was not not important for them if they had to lost lives because of it. -- It is one respecting thing for Orthodox Church. "

On this point it is worth bearing in mind that there were very few opportunities for Nicholas II and his family to escape Russia after his abdication - however the family were not unwilling to leave if the opportunity presented itself. All the male Romanov's who'd not left St Petersburg during the Provisional Government were placed under arrest after the Bolshevik Revolution only one of them - Prince Gavril Constantinovich escaped due to the intervention of Gorky. The Romanov's in the Crimea left (in the case of the Dowager Empress and Grand Duchess Xenia) under considerable pressure by their own entourage and letters from relatives in Denmark and Britain. As to Nicholas II - at Mogilev after the abdication the Empress Dowager was told to try and persuade her son to leave - she was anxious but was told it was vital for his safety that he left immediately and didn't return to Petrograd he was refusing because he wanted to be with the  Empress and his children.  Once he was imprisoned at the Alexander Palace he, his wife and children were very hopeful for the opportunity to leave Russia and were happy to accept the offer to go to England it was really their only chance of escape - however the offer was withdrawn by the British Government under pressure from George V, by the time the news of the withdrawel of the offer reached the British Ambassador in Petrograd, Kerensky had been forced to offer guarantees to the Soviet that the family wouldn't be allowed to leave Russia, with that their last chance of escape was truly gone. I don't doubt the families love for Russia, but had the opportunity presented itself - that the whole family could leave together - historical facts suggest they would have left. Throughout their exile in Tobolsk and then in Ekaterinburg they appeared to remain hopeful of liberation and escape even if that meant leaving Russia.

176

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Alexandra's Personality Traits - Good & Bad

« on: December 29, 2008, 07:28:47 AM »

I think there is some validity in your points about the Russian Succession in the 18th Century and the removal of undesirable heirs...However it did also cause great insecurity it also in many cases undermined the power of the Emperor/Empress - the only two who could arguably be said to have strengthened Russia and Imperial power were Elizabeth I and Catherine II.

177

The Windsors / Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy

« on: December 29, 2008, 07:00:58 AM »

The Duchy of Lancaster is odd - but under the original charters establishing it the Monarch has absolutely no rights to the assets of the Duchy merely the income created by those assets. With the abolition of the monarchy it is one of the things that might cause considerable tension over who has the right to control those assets.

178

Scandanavian Royal Families / Re: Crown Princess Victoria

« on: December 23, 2008, 10:02:44 AM »

I assume it will be the decision of a future Queen Victoria or her heir whether she makes a formal change to the Royal House.

As to comparison's with the British dynastic name. Technically the Royal House is that of Windsor (as it has been since 1917) - the present Queen issued patents confirming that - however nothing would stop Prince Charles on his accession to changing that. In tribute to her husband she issued further patents that it was her wish that those of her descendants who require a surname should use the equally made up Mountbatten-Windsor.

Technically the British Royal House is Guelph (or Hannover) from 1714 to 1901, then from 1901 to 1917 the House of Wettin (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was merely a branch of the Royal House of Saxony), then Windsor from 1917 by letters patent issued by George V.
Prince Philip as a Prince of Greece and Denmark had no surname - an arguement that the Greek and Danish Royal Houses still maintain. On his unnecessary British naturalisation he chose the anglicised version of his mothers name - Mountbatten partly under the influence of his uncle Louis Mountbatten and partly because if he used his father it was a too German sounding and if translated into English his most accurate surname would be Oldcastle. He was technically a junior member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg however that in itself is a junior branch of the House of Oldenburg - on Charles' accession he will geneologically be the first of the House of Oldenburg to reign in Britain  (ironically had Queen Anne's son survived the House of Oldenburg would have course have ascended to the British throne in 1714). 

This issue will be a major one in the 21st Century as the Royal Houses of Norway, The Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and possibly Spain will all pass through female lines.

179

The Windsors / Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy

« on: December 23, 2008, 09:27:23 AM »

There are a few probable scenarios if the monarchy were abolished however in most circumstances its unlikely that mass confiscation and exile would be likely.

Option 1 - an independent Scotland votes for a Republic - in which case the Scots Government would almost certainly insist on any Royal Assets in Scotland being transferred to them - that would probably include Holyrood House (only used occassionally by the Queen anyway) and possibly the transfer of any property administered by the Crown Estates which would reduce its income.  There might be future tax issues for the "Queen of England" as a foreign resident with property in Scotland - but the Scots Government would probably have had to give tax undertakens to the many English nationals who also own property north of the border.

Option 2 - Britain as a whole becomes a Republic (with Australia almost certainly following suit) - The former monarch would still technically be King or Queen of Canada, New Zealand etc - however an abolition here would probably snowball elswhere
I suspect the Crown Estates and the Duchy of Lancaster would be abolished with the assets transferred to the state given the technical fact that the Crown Estates are still the monarch's property (though held by the state) a small financial settlement might be reached.  The Monarch would probably agree to waive any claim to the historic gems set in the crown jewels - the Koh I Noor, The Cullinan 1 and 2, the Stuart Saphire etc. 
The entire jewellery collection including gifts of jewellery made during the reign would be regarded as private property. The Royal Collection transferred to state and would probably continue as it does now - private art work not part of the Royal Collection regarded as part of the private fortune of the monarch.
Balmoral and Sandringham private property all the rest of the Palaces transferred to the Historic Royal Palaces Trust (with a new board and arrangements for its governance).
The Duchy of Cornwall estates also abolished and transferred to the state with a possible small financial settlement made to the former heir to the throne.
It is also possible that the State would give the family permission to retain occupation of possibly Royal Lodge at Windsor and Clarence House paying either a commercial or peppercorn rent as part of any deal regarding the contents of the Royal Palaces in occupation, its also likely that those members of the Royal family and the Royal Household using houses at some of the Royal Palaces would be allowed to continue living there providing they were paying a commercial rent for them - though over time i suspect that would cease.  It would be in the State's interest to deal fairly with the former Royal Family to avoid lengthy and expensive law suits to try and establish what was and wasn't private property. The bigger issue would be taxation - whilst the current monarch pays tax on her private income, property left by one reigning monarch (or his spouse) to the next reigning monarch is exempt from death duties - the risk of abolition and the abandonment of that rule is that within a couple of generations we might be seeing Sotheby's auctioning off gems like the Cullinan 3 and 4, the Cambridge Emeralds, the Cambridge Tiara, or the Vladimir Tiara to help the family meet their liabilities.

180

The Windsors / Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy

« on: December 23, 2008, 09:26:34 AM »

Its a fairly murky issue - Firstly everything might be owned by the Monarch but can't be disposed of - technically its the property of the nation though with some exceptions the nation doesn't really get to use it - apart from her personal investments, jewellery, artworks, objet d'art and private estates (Sandringham bought for Edward VII as Prince of Wales, and Balmoral bought by Prince Albert and Queen Victoria - although it would be pretty unthinkable that the Queen or her successors would dispose of them though they could)

To understand the breakdown:

The Historic Royal Palace is a charitable Trust which was established by parliament - it receives no Government aid whatsoever and relies entirely on revenue it generates - that covers the unoccupied bits of Kensington Palace, The Tower of London, Kew Palace, Whitehall (the Banqueting House), and Hampton Court Palace.
The government became responsible for their management in 1851, the Government passed control over the day to day running of them to the Trust in the 1990's - they are run by trustees - the Chairman appointed by the Monarch on the advice of the Culture Secretary, four trustees are directly appointed by the Queen and three further are automatic - director of the Royal Collection, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, and the Lord Chamberlain a further six are directly appointed by the Secretary of State for Culture who must include the Constable of the Tower of London in those six. The Trust is legally responsible to Parliament for the upkeep and maintenance of the buildings and ensuring public access etc.

The Occupied Royal Palaces Estate covers Buckingham Palace, St James's Palace, Windsor Castle, the Occupied Parts of Kensington Palace, Hampton Court Mews and the Home Park (Windsor). Responsibility for upkeep remains with the Department of Culture but in 1991 it delegated that responsibility to the Royal Household who receives grant in aid of £15 million - unfortunately the grant has hardly changed in the last decade unlike the costs (despite the savings and additional revenue raised by the Royal Household) hence the current arguement over the backlog of maintenance.

The Private Estates - Sandringham House and Estate in Norfolk and Balmoral in Scotland - their maintenance and running costs are met by the Queen out of her private income. They are regarded as her personal property inherited from her father (who bought them from his brother Edward VIII after the abdication).

The Crown Estates - now worth over £7 billion - these are the monarch's hereditary land and property holdings that were surrendered by George III to the Government in return for a fixed income (the Civil List) - the revenues of these estates are around £200 million a year and go directly to the Government.

The Duchy of Lancaster Estate - The Duchy is administered on behalf of the Sovereign by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (a cabinet minister) - management of the Duchy's assets lies with a body called the Duchy Council. The members of the Duchy Council are appointed by the Sovereign on the advice of the Chancellor. established by Royal Charter -  The Monarch has no right to the assets or any capital increases in value merely the net income.

Works of Arts etc - The bulk of the Queen's Art Collection etc is now under the control of the Royal Collection which again receives no Government grant-in-aid or public subsidy.  It is administered by the Royal Collection Trust, a registered charity.  The Trust was set up by The Queen in 1993.

Jewels etc - the rest of the assets would primarily be the Queen's collection of Jewellery which is probably the most difficult part to dissect between "held by the Queen for the nation" and personal property - Undoubtedly The Crown Jewels would be regarded as the property of the nation, arguably though the Royal Family could claim that certain of the stones used in the crown jewels would be their personal property for example the Cullinan II which is in the Imperial State Crown and the Cullinan I which is in the sword of state - the Cullinan was given to Edward VII on his birthday and apart from "the greater" and "lesser" Stars of Africa in the Crown Jewels the other bits of it are still worn by the Queen in the other pieces of jewellery made for Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary. Arguably some of the most famous pieces would certainly be regarded as private property.  The vast majority of the Queen's Jewellery was commissioned and made in the last 100 to 150 years and its size is partly due to the collections of Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary. Most gifts of jewellery to the Queen from foreign heads of state are now considered to be gifts to the nation and as such the nation technically should own them however similar gifts made before the second world war are far more likely to be considered family gifts and private property - it would also be very hard for the state to claim the many pieces made and purchased by Queen Mary.