The Crown Estate income has basically been paid to the State since 1760. It’s a bit more complicated than that, will provide links when not on phone.
Edit: Well beaten!
Why “if”?
What are the assets of the Crown Estate? Are we talking corn and sheep, mutual funds, tourism revenues?
Property, including big chunks of central London. The income is largely rent.
LOL. Don’t go there…everyone knows it was Prince Philip.
Wow, I didn’t think that the arrangement as it more or less exists today between the monarchy and the people of England predated the American revolution! I wrongly guessed that it was a late 19th century thing…
One thing that did change a bit more recently, was that the Queen “volunteered” to pay taxes on her private income. This was in 1992, when there was a bit of a furore about who was going to pay for the restoration of Windsor Castle after a fire.
Also, pet peeve, it wasn’t just with the people of England. 
Yes indeed, the British people/parliamant had been throwing toys out of their prams and stripping the Monarch of powers bit by bit for years before the Americans started doing it. How do you think we got the Magna Carta?
It’s one of the reasons I always find it rather puzzling that Americans talk about kicking out King George, when really, you were kicking out the British Government. The monarchy was already pretty toothless by the time of US independance.
Terribly sorry about that. I kinda looked at that for awhile after the edit window had closed and thought “that isn’t right, is it?” and just knew I’d get called on it!
But the Magna Carta was signed in the 13th Century…your monarchs had plenty of power to levy taxes, wage wars, acquire wealth, etc well after that. Maybe its just a false impression but this Yank always thought that the true erosion of monarchical powers was a more recent development. Like 19th century recent.
Magna Carta was a first step on the way to cutting back the powers. Then there’s the restoration of the Monarchy in 1661 (“you can come back, Charlie, but on our terms”). The most important point was the 1689 Bill of Rights, which firmly established parliamentary supremacy.
Attacking a specific person has more impact than attacking a faceless institution.
Ah. Well there you go then.
And note that within a few years of the massacre in Nepal that the country became a republic. I suspect that the same thing would happen in the UK, if the monarch or her heir did something so crazy.
Didn’t Billy Carter get sent up for drunk driving while his brother Jimmy was President of the USA? I seem to rememebr a big public joke about whether Jimmy would pardon him, but he refused to discuss the matter, much less do so. I was about 7 years old at the time though . . .
The President can pardon people for federal crimes. Drunk driving is a state crime. Billy would have to make his case to the governor.
Couldn’t the monarch withhold Royal Assent from that Act?
The monarch withholding her assent from an act passed by the two houses of Parliament would be an even more rapid way of ending the monarchy than HRH the Prince of Wales becoming a serial killer.
How so? I really don’t know how the process works, but the Queen does need to sign off on every Act of Parliament, no? I understand that a monarch has not used this power since the 1700s, but if she did, how would you stop it? Short of civil war and overthrow of the government?
It’s been said that the Queen would have to sign her own death warrant if Parliament passed such a law. If the Queen starts withholding royal assent to laws without a very good reason, I guess it could be possible to declare a regency, but I’m not sure what the law about it says exactly. Otherwise, if the British government and all of the citizenry say the UK is no longer a K because the Queen and her family aren’t reliable anymore, there’s nothing that can be done about it. The country would become a republic without war and without change in government.
And she’d look damn good all the while.