Royal marriage question

So I'm considering having a member of the British Royal family marry a wealthy British heiress: wealth in terms of land etx: in around the early 1910s or early 1920s.

My question is how would parliament and government. React to this if it was one of the following:

Prince of Wales

Second in line

Third in line.

Would the member have to renounce any claim to a part of the civil list?
 
Technical point: the civil list is granted to royals who are performing duties for the crown and any royal is free to use or not use it as he/she pleases. I'm not sure renouncing is what you're looking to do; maybe being cut down or from the civil list?

To answer your question: No. So long as the duties to crown and country were performed, wifey's money isn't relevant. The only time it would matter would be in a case where said wealthy British heiress has a husband she divorced, no matter who the 'innocent' party was OR she's Roman Catholic or a non-Christian religion (Orthodox would probably be counted as Catholic). Then the politicians would consider cutting the allowance and using her funds as an official excuse - but if she were RC, he'd have to resign his place in the succession as well, so the civil list could be cut.
 
Alright brilliant.

I do wonder how would parliament feel about there being a Royal who has an independent Income as well as being on the civil list
 
I believe it's happened before. The civil list is based upon the duties required (and somewhat the behavior) of the royals involved (which was why Duke and Duchess of Windsor cut a deal with the King rather than try to get money from parliament). A marriage means more money from the civil list because the duties required the royal to support his spouse (back then). Now, the increase in said royal's civil list allowance may not be as large as others because of the income - but it's not a guarantee so long as she does her royal duties, they (parliament) may have a set rate for the royals; I don't know how it's figured.
 
Alright interesting.

Would be good to see the crown stick a finger at Parliament and regain some independence
 
Would be good to see the crown stick a finger at Parliament and regain some independence
Charles I might disagree :p

Basically if the crown attempts to get independence from parliament in the 20th century it gets destroyed or 'helped' until it stops implicitly threatening the supremacy of parliament.
 
Charles I might disagree :p

Basically if the crown attempts to get independence from parliament in the 20th century it gets destroyed or 'helped' until it stops implicitly threatening the supremacy of parliament.

Ah, and then the country goes to shit once they realise how stupid not having a crowned head is aha.
 
Alright interesting.

Would be good to see the crown stick a finger at Parliament and regain some independence

If the Crown starts giving Parliament the finger Britain becomes a republic in the next few decades. The Monarchy exists because of Parliament not the other way round and telling the people who pay your wages and own your house to do one doesnt work too well.
 
If the Crown starts giving Parliament the finger Britain becomes a republic in the next few decades. The Monarchy exists because of Parliament not the other way round and telling the people who pay your wages and own your house to do one doesnt work too well.

Unfourtunately that is true. Which is why I always laugh when people complain about the cost of the monarchy. Parliament controls the crown estate, if the crown becomes such a burden, give the crown estate back to the crown.

I think the record of really independent crowns in the 20th century would suggest otherwise.

Very true, but look how much chaos those with no crowned heads have fallen into.
 
Which is why I always laugh when people complain about the cost of the monarchy. Parliament controls the crown estate, if the crown becomes such a burden, give the crown estate back to the crown.
Is that a real comparison? If you got rid of the crown would you not likely keep the crown estate as 'public estate' or 'national land' and just give them a token 'mutually' agreed compensation...

I'm not sure the details of who owns what on paper matter, since you are effectively removing the crown from power you must have charged them with some to justify it say treason against parliament? At that point a few assets (even large ones) are really irrelevant.
 
Is that a real comparison? If you got rid of the crown would you not likely keep the crown estate as 'public estate' or 'national land' and just give them a token 'mutually' agreed compensation...

I'm not sure the details of who owns what on paper matter, since you are effectively removing the crown from power you must have charged them with some to justify it say treason against parliament? At that point a few assets (even large ones) are really irrelevant.

Fair enough. Tbh, the title of the thing to my mind suggests that really, the estate should belong to the monarch not to a bunch of politicians who use it for their own agenda.
 
A definition of the estate: The Crown Estate is a collection of lands and holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch as a corporation sole, making it the "Sovereign's public estate", which is neither government property nor part of the monarch's private estate.[1][2][3][4] As a result of this arrangement, the sovereign is not involved with the management or administration of the estate, exercising only very limited control of its affairs.[5] Instead, the estate's extensive portfoliois overseen by a semi-independent, incorporated public body headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners, who exercise "the powers of ownership" of the estate, although they are not "owners in their own right".[1] The revenues from these hereditary possessions have been placed by the monarch at the disposition of Her Majesty's Governmentand thus proceed directly to Her Majesty's Treasury for the benefit of the British nation.[1][6][7] The Crown Estate is formally accountable to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, where it is legally mandated to make an annual report to the sovereign, a copy of which is forwarded to the House of Commons.

As the monarch still technically owns the lands and properities in the estate, Parliament keepng them would be seen as robbery no?
 
As the monarch still technically owns the lands and properities in the estate, Parliament keepng them would be seen as robbery no?
The question is, are the crown lands owned by the monarch as a individual person or as the monarch as in the office?
If they are only owned due to the monarchs position then do they not lose them on abdication (or removal from office)

In the event that the crown was removed parliament would make up the rules and its unlikely to happen when the crown is popular so it can take anything it likes, precedents from Edward VIII abdication or Charles I would help set a nice precedent to provide legal cover...

Its also worth noting that in Commonwealth realms such as Canada and Australia crown land is considered public land.
 
The question is, are the crown lands owned by the monarch as a individual person or as the monarch as in the office?
If they are only owned due to the monarchs position then do they not lose them on abdication (or removal from office)

In the event that the crown was removed parliament would make up the rules and its unlikely to happen when the crown is popular so it can take anything it likes, precedents from Edward VIII abdication or Charles I would help set a nice precedent to provide legal cover...

Its also worth noting that in Commonwealth realms such as Canada and Australia crown land is considered public land.

Indeed a very complicated issue. I know Balmoral only goes to the monarch after the prevbious monach's death. Everything else goes to the monarch on their ascension to the role. So I suppose the royal family owns them as such, and the government benefits from them. Should the monarch decide not to contribute the income to the government, the government would be screwed.
 
the government would be screwed
They simply ignore the monarch... or summon them to open parliament and then stand in front of the Charles death warrant for a few hours more than every other time...
Balmoral only goes to the monarch after the prevbious monach's death.
from EVIII abdication it looks like,
"He also profited from the sale of Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House to George VI. Both estates are private property and not part of the Royal Estate, and were therefore inherited and owned by Edward, regardless of the abdication."
So parliament simply say no and everything else is lost if you give up the crown (or get kicked out).
 
So I'm considering having a member of the British Royal family marry a wealthy British heiress: wealth in terms of land etx: in around the early 1910s or early 1920s.

My question is how would parliament and government. React to this if it was one of the following:

Prince of Wales

Second in line

Third in line.

Would the member have to renounce any claim to a part of the civil list?

Why would Parliament or Government object?

The Royal Family have always had private resources in addition to their state provided resources. Case in point, the younger children of George V. At his death, he left each of his younger children (the future George VI, Princess Mary, Prince Henry and Prince George) the sum of £1 million each (source: Kenneth Rose's excellent biography of George V).

The purpose of the Civil List was to provide for members of the Royal Family to undertake their duties as a member of the Royal Family.

It was not means tested to reflect personal circumstances of wealth. Some branches of the Royal Family have been far wealthier than others over the years, for example Prince George, Duke of Kent's wealth was largely obliterated by his early death in 1942 without inheritance planning, meaning his widow faced huge death duties and lost her Civil List income, which was payable to her husband, not her. As such the Kent branch of the Royal Family has always been significantly poorer than the Gloucester branch.

To bring it back to your scenario, lets say for example the Duke of Westminster in 1920 only had one daughter, who was destined to inherit the Grosvenor estate. It would not be an issue if she were to marry the Prince of Wales and for the Grosvenor estate to become property of future monarchs. You have to remember the kind of scrutiny that the Royal Family are placed under now is a recent development.

The only circumstances I could envision there being a problem is if there was a clear conflict between the monarch and government policy, say for example the King is the main shareholder in a company and places pressure on Government to facilitate circumstances beneficial to his company or he uses his position to gain unfair advantage for his company.

A number of British royals have married wealthy individuals, successive Princess Royals in the 20th century, Louise and Mary married extremely wealthy nobles (Duke of Fife and Earl of Harewood respectively) and in 1935 the Duke of Gloucester married Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott, daughter of the Duke of Buccleuch, one of the richest men in the UK.
 
Indeed a very complicated issue. I know Balmoral only goes to the monarch after the prevbious monach's death. Everything else goes to the monarch on their ascension to the role. So I suppose the royal family owns them as such, and the government benefits from them. Should the monarch decide not to contribute the income to the government, the government would be screwed.

Balmoral and Sandringham are owned personally by the Queen in the same way you or I can own a home. The government has no involvement in their ownership and pays nothing towards their maintenance, that is paid by the Queen via her private income.

Tradition dictates that the two properties, which are closely associated with the monarchy are left by one monarch to his heir as monarch, thereby being exempt from taxation. When Edward VIII abdicated, he sold the properties to his brother the new King George VI, as it was considered important to the stability and image of the monarchy that these properties be maintained.
 
Top