No, she owns Sandringham estate and Balmoral outright and they are not publicly funded. Buckingham palace is owned by the sovereign and is held in trust by Crown estates. If the monarch was abolished this obviously wouldn’t be the case, but the Queen owns the two mentioned above and would then be her private homes.Randall wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:00 pmIf she owns it it's due to her positionHalloweenJack wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:50 pmThe Americans as a whole love our royal family.Randall wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:44 pmAmericans come here for history as they have none of their own. What difference to them does it make if the royal family is still there if the architecture is?HalloweenJack wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:38 pmWow. Whilst you are entitled to your opinion, I think you are totally wrong regarding increased revenue if the monarchy was abolished.
Interestingly enough you posted a comment ( I think yesterday) referring to Tony Benn as a nutter, yet you seem to think along the same lines
I didn’t have you down as the loony left type.
The Queen I believe owns outright Balmoral and the Sandringham estate so I doubt they would be tourist attractions.
You do realise that when the Queen dies it will arguably be the biggest news story ever and it would be far bigger than Price Phillips death and at least on a par if not bigger than Princess Diana’s death.
No position no property
Let’s be honest, if the monarchy was ever abolished,
they would earn an absolute fortune for speaking engagements etc.
I think the older ones such as the Queen and Prince Charles would just step out of public life.
Are you anti monarchy period or is it certain members of the royals you don’t like or is it the institution itself?