The fact you think that people would see royalty’s highly nominal “ownership” of crown assets in the same way they’d view their own houses. I think that is a massive misjudgment but if you believe it, well there you go.
I think that assuming there existed at some future time a mandate for a republic(which is the hypothetical we are discussing) if you explained to people that there are Crown Estates and there are royalty’s personal assets, and it was proposed to leave royalty with the latter, they would be fine with that and would not see it as a threat to their own house.
But that’s just us disagreeing, not me misunderstanding the context - after all, it was me that set the context for that part of the discussion.
I agree that if you explained it to the people that way, it’d be OK. But we were talking about a situation where the Queen is the acknowledged owner of those lands, even if in the most technical of ways. That’s the context: the queen is the owner, not the crown. And the govt says ‘yes, she owns this stuff and yes, we are going to take it. All we need to do is pass this law. Easy!’
The people who’d be really bothered by that sort of thing would be other major freeholders and large landowners, who also tend to be big donors to political parties. But among ordinary people there’d definitely be a strong element of ‘if it can even happen to the Queen…’
I’m with prin on this. In a situation in which republicanism is that viable, people will already see that stuff as part of the national heritage, not as someone’s private property. The whole point of republicanism is that this one family will be deprived of it’s hereditary rights and privileges, which are in no way comparable to those of everyone else.
I understand that now. I just thought your opinion was so far off the mark that you must have misunderstood the context. I was wrong about the latter. I don’t think I’m wrong about the former. I really can’t understand how (in the context of a move to a republic) homeowners would be upset if the royalty wasn’t given private ownership of vast highly valuable public assets that at the moment are not the private property of the royals but only theirs in name.
I know 50% of the public are of below average intelligence but I don’t think they are that uncomprehending.
Unless we’re talking revolution on the scale of Lenin and Mao, any nationalization of “crown property” would probably include a payment for the value/benefit the owners had. In the case of say, Windsor Castle or Buckingham Palace, since the royal family does not actually own the property, no payment necessary. They are just given their month’s notice to leave their furnished flats, and find other accomodation of which they own several.
Ditto, the royal estates would essentially be the government’s since they receive the income for them for centuries; in return they pay for the pomp and circumstance of royalty - which of course is no longer needed in a republic. So keep royal estates, cut off royal list. Republicanly fair…
If the government wants, say, Balmoral, why make a point of stealing it unless the motivation is revenge not justice? Just do what they did to many lords unfortunate enough to die in the mid-1900’s - jack up death duties very high for estates over say, $10 million. After all, a fair and egalitarian society where all men are created equal would not object to that.