Would she be allowed to take all the crown jewels with her to her private place of retirement? What about the crown lands in Britain, Australia and New Zealand? Can she sell all those or will the Governments just assume ownership but with just compensation? How much will she be worth by then?
Well, Charles I didn’t get to take anything with him. Nor did Louis XVI.
The crown jewels, crown lands, palaces, etc belong to the monarch. If Elizabeth were de-monarchized she would have no right to them. Presumably she would be allowed to take with her only personal possessions of the Windsor family. Of course, what counts as personal would be the nub of the question but I should imagine that any government prepared to give her the royal heave-ho would make darn sure she didn’t get to take all the swag with her.
they still own balmoral and sandrinham. regarding crown land outside britain, they’re governed by different laws and enactments. in the US, former crown land became federal land. in australia, legislatures in some states already allow sale and disposal of crown land (with no compensation to the British monarch.) in canada, i understand crown lands are held by the government but are not alienable.
The point is that if the Queen were un-queened, current laws and constitutional conventions would ipso faco be being abrogated, so all bets are off. She might be able to keep some or all of the possessions that are considered “personal,” but, on the other hand, she might not even be allowed to keep her head. The question is meaningless without specification of the circumstances of the un-queening. (And not much better even if you were to specify whether it were, for instance, bloody revolution or genteel mutual agreement. For instance, it is conceivable that to induce her to go quietly, whoever was pushing her out might agree to let her keep the Crown Jewels, even though they are not, under the current constitutional regime, considered to be her personal possessions.)
We have a relatively recent (1936) real-life example of what happens when a British monarch abdicates: Edward VIII.
that i like. well, since i’m more interested with personal asset valuation, and of course what would be considered private property, i would assume the process should be peaceful and amicable.
let’s assume there was a referendum the UK and other commonwealth countries, and all parliaments coordinated to agree on the following:
-
the family would relinquish all titles and styles that make or imply them to be titular heads. they would now become private citizens enjoying full protection and privileges as such.
-
they be allowed to keep personal properties and assets. by this i mean assets named to them as individuals and not those protected perpetually under the “crown” (ex: the crown jewels.)
-
for movable assets like the crown jewels, i feel they should go to the family as these would serve the state little besides being heritage objects (why un-queen her then?)
-
for crown lands that are not yet disposable by the various governments, an outright compensation or freedom to dispose as personal assets.
1-4 still dont look complete but í’m running out of ideas.
No, this isn’t correct. “Crown lands” in Canada are not the personal possession of the monarch. They are public lands, held in the name of the Crown, but are fully alienable by the relevant federal and provincial governments of the day. There are usually statutory requirements concerning alienation, but they are under the complete control of the government, without any regard to the Queen’s personal interests. If the Queen ceased to be queen, there would be no basis for offering compensation to her for the Crown lands.
Is un-Queening a new facebook feature that I missed?
It’s what happens when Elton John got married to a woman 
Recommended reading: Townsend, Sue, The Queen and I
Do you mean if she were to abdicate in favour of Charles? Or if the U.K. were to become a republic?
In the former case she’d retire to a royal residence, much like her mother; in the latter, it would depend on Parliament.
The issue with respect to crown lands and other crown property in Australia and the Australian states and territories was well explored in the debate leading up to the Australian republic referendum in 1999. They are not the property of the monarch as a person: they are the property of the Crown in right of Australia or of the Australian state or territory. They would have continued to belong to Australia or the state or territory, and probably crown land in a particular state would have in the future been called “state land”. (But the referendum was lost, so this is all hypothetical.)
I’m surprised no one has mentioned that the Crown Jewels cannot leave Britain by law. That is why George V had to have a crownmade as Emperor of India.
Why not just ask your mum, Charles?
Forbes recently estimated Elizabeth II’s personal fortune at $450 million which official statements would claim is grossly overstated. At any rate, it does seem that the Royal Family has significant assets which belong to them personally, not the crown. If Parliament wanted to be nasty, they could probably figure out a way to take a lot of it away if the UK became a republic, but with the crown estates valued at something like $10 billion, they probably wouldn’t begrudge the former monarchs a few hundred million that the accountants have been careful to keep separate. Balmoral castle and Sandringham house are the Queen’s private property, as mentioned above. Purchased by Victoria, and presumably handed down through the ruling monarchs as part of personal estates, I think either of those would give the no-longer-royal family an adequate place to live.