-1

In order to get the incomes from royal domains and other properties owned by the nobility.

Improve this question
2
  • Expropriation of other people's property is something that democratic governments (in theory) don't like doing, as it undermines faith in property law. Why put money, time or effort into a property if the government could arbitrarily take it away without compensation at any moment?
    – Steve Melnikoff
    Commented Jun 28 at 8:26
  • I guess the question the government faces is; does the cost of upsetting the majority of the electorate, the potential loss of revenues from tourism and the Crown Estates etc. outweigh the benefits of the increase in income? I'm not a royalist, I'd prefer a more grown up way of choosing our head of state but, well, democracy...
    – Dave Gremlin
    Commented Jun 28 at 19:44

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
11

Why doesn't the British government simply expropriate all royal property?

In order to get the incomes from royal domains and other properties owned by the nobility.

The state already gets the net income from the Crown Estate, the bulk of 'royal property'.

While we think of the monarch as the owner, the Crown Estate is not their private property to do with as they wish. If you own a house you can offer it for sale - King Charles can't do that with all or part of the Crown Estate because it is an asset of the Crown. It's administered by Crown Estate Commissioners on behalf of the Crown. (The Crown is part of the state.)

Since 1760 the net income from the Crown Estate has gone to the state, an arrangement negotiated by George III to relieve him from having to pay the costs of maintaining the civil service and paying off the national debt.

Until 2012 the monarch was paid from the Civil List and grants-in-aid and since 2012 the monarch has been paid from the Sovereign Grant instead.

The other 'royal properties' are the Duchy of Lancaster, held in trust for the monarch, and the Duchy of Cornwall, held in trust for the Duke of Cornwall if the monarch has an eldest son, otherwise the Crown if there are no sons. Again these are Crown bodies, the monarch can't dispose of them how they wish, although they do have some influence/control.

There have been proposals to nationalise the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, e.g. a Private Members Bill introduced by Willie Hamilton in 1972, which was defeated (Hamilton raised this issue several times). There have been sufficient complaints to influence changes in how the civil list/sovereign grant system work, how 'transparent' the accounts are and what taxes are paid. But there hasn't been substantial public support for or political capital in the nationalisation of nominally royal property.

Improve this answer
0

Expropriating ownership is a very hard thing and you can not just do that. It takes normally length court processes.

You can not just take away from others what they have. Not even the government can do it.

Opinion polls says clearly that the people of the UK is fine with their current state form (Kingdom de jure, republic de facto) and they do not want to change it. Their support is clear and stable even on the long term.

The parlament represents them. Part of the upper house is their nobility, actually.

They won't make such laws.

Improve this answer
7
  • why not? is there something stopping the parliament from passing such law that seizes property of any royals or uk nobility?
    – Maxim Baurov
    Commented Jun 27 at 13:31
  • 5
    Well, optics for one thing. The monarchy is still popular, especially among conservative voters, and any government that tries to act against them is going to have a hard time staying in power.
    – F1Krazy
    Commented Jun 27 at 13:37
  • 4
    In theory? Laws need to be signed into law by the ruling monarch, so they can theoretically just veto the law. Practically speaking this will likely never happen, but practically speaking just overriding all expropriation law will never happen either, because of the massive social unrest it'd cause.
    – kenod
    Commented Jun 27 at 13:37
  • Yes. I think the ultimate reason, why the king is still on the throne, that the people wants it.
    – Gray Sheep
    Commented Jun 27 at 13:47
  • @GraySheep Or at least, there aren't enough people who support changing the status quo (assuming they can even agree what changes to make).
    – Steve Melnikoff
    Commented Jun 27 at 21:37

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .