The Hypothetical Question of Prince William Living with his Girlfriend

[Jo of Palatine]

Along this line, (and this may be a question someone else could answer as I don't know the answer definitively myself) I don't believe that Charles Montbatten-Windsor, private citizen would keep the living of the Duchy of Cornwall if the monarchy was abolished, unlike other businessmen who could keep the businesses that they either started or inherited. If there was no more monarchy, would he be allowed to retain his ducal title? I can admit that I don't really know for sure.

In the 1700s the then British souverain exchanged the Crown estate which had been his private property for the incomes provided by the duchies of Lancaster, Cornwall and the money from the civil list. If the British decide to abolish their monarchy, this contract would be nil and the still existing Crown estate would revert back to the family of Windsor. Every year the British taxpayers make a profit of around 100 millions of pounds out of the revenues of the Crown estate - meaning that's what is left of the Crown estate's profits after every cost for the Royal family, their palaces, travels etc. has been payed.

So abolishing the monarchy would be quite costly for the British state, for the taxpayer and the public because it would leave the Windsors as extremely rich people with most of their titles intact. Or do you really think that abolishing the monarchy in Britain would mean to strip all members of the nobility of their titles and all British citizens of their inherited money?

It happened to the Habsburgs, yes, but their problem at the moment is that their money had been tied up in a trust fund which does not longer exist. But the courts say that the money did not belong to the family (as in the still living members of the family) but to the trust fund. As the fund does not longer exist, there is noone there with a claim to the money. The situation in the UK would be completely different from this: with the upcoming of the democracy the Royal family gave so much to the government and their people but is still entitled to these possessions once the monarchy would stop to be in existence.

So people should stop thinking about the Royal family as a kind of parasites who at least own the public openness about their private life but see that there is a family which has been in public service for centuries and been rewarded for it according to the law of each of these centuries. So, yes, IMHO Skydragon is right if she compares her situation to that of Prince William. And as it is absolutely clear that her privacy is to be protected this means that Prince William should have the same right to his privacy. It's difficult to understand, but still that's the way it should be. IMHO.

 

[Next Star]

Prince William living with his girlfriend why? He is not married to her and no offense but he lives in beautiful castles and palaces.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Prince William living with his girlfriend why? He is not married to her and no offense but he lives in beautiful castles and palaces.

Maybe he simply wants to be with her? What has that to do with his living in a palace? Sorry, I don't understand you argumentation.

 

[Zonk]

Jo that is very interesting information regarding the Haspburgs. Where did you find that info?

If the monarchy is abolished and thats a very big IF..the current family will not walk away poor. Now in a couple of generations...that could change...but you never know.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Jo that is very interesting information regarding the Haspburgs. Where did you find that info?

If the monarchy is abolished and thats a very big IF..the current family will not walk away poor. Now in a couple of generations...that could change...but you never know.

I'm German and have been a lawyer so I read about it in several German/Austrian sources about the legitimation of the "Habsburg"-laws of Austria.

As I don't know about sources in English, here's a short summary of the case. The problem is that there was the legislation of 1918-1919 which stripped the Habsburgs (that is: the members of the Imperial House) of all their wealth - not only the estate of the Crown of Austria but of their private wealth as well. This law was reversed in 1936 and the assets were given over to a fund which should have provided for the family. A similar thing happened after WWI in Bavaria with the "Wittelsbacher Ausgleichfond" ("Ausgleich" meaning compensation) which still provides quite a nice income for the former Royals.

But when Hitler's Germany took over Austria in 1938, he was very annoyed about Crown Prince Otto of Austria who worked diplomatically with the later Allies to save Austria from Hitler. So Hitler saw to it that the fund was broken and the Austrian state (that is, the German state at that time with Austria a part of Germany then) again took all the possessions.

After WWII the Habsburgs tried to get these assets, mostly consisting of their former private wealth, lands and private residences like Laxenburg Palace in Vienna, back, especially as they could prove that it was because of their opposition to Hitler that they were deprived of this. But the Austrian state of today argues that the fund had been the owner of all these assets according to the 1936 law, that the fund does not exist anymore and thus the Austria state is the rightful owner of these assets. The Austrian courts follow this argumentation and tell Archdukes Otto and Karl (the former Crown Prince and his eldest son) that in the legal sense they have no claim to speak or act for the fund and thus there can be no ruling. Not one in their favour and not one against them but simply no ruling at all. Which is a very bad situation for the family.

here's a link to the german Wikipedia which sums it up quite nicely (if you speak German, that is...): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habsburger-Gesetz

 

[Zonk]

WOW...thanks for the info Jo. And now back to topic.

Since William is going to be in the Army for three years..and we assume stationed elsewhere..how do we really know that Kate and William will live together? I assume, like most girlfriends, she would instead visit her boyfriend where ever he happens to be stationed at. Most like she doesn now.

 

[kimebear]

I find it hard to believe that taxpayer money would be spent buying groceries and paying for electric at Clarence House if the residents there were private citizens.

Have you not heard of social security benefits then, taxpayers pay for the groceries and electricity of ordinary citizens all the time
My father inherited his estate from his father, he too built on the successes that his gt. gt etc had obtained, how would you have felt to have your entire life commented on.

Wow! If William is any indicator on how large the social security benefits are in England, I'm quitting my job and moving there!

If we didn't comment on the lives of the royals, this forum would dry up pretty quickly.

 

[HRH Elizabeth]

If we didn't comment on the lives of the royals, this forum would dry up pretty quickly.

And while they should absolutely have their privacy, if they are entirely unanswerable to their subjects and free to do whatever they like without comment, why are they still our royal family?

 

[Next Star]

Maybe he simply wants to be with her? What has that to do with his living in a palace? Sorry, I don't understand you argumentation.

He can be with her that does not mean that has live with her you still have a good relationship with someone without having to live with them. He is not a ordinary person like I said before he lives in some of most beautiful royal estates.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

He can be with her that does not mean that has live with her you still have a good relationship with someone without having to live with them. He is not a ordinary person like I said before he lives in some of most beautiful royal estates.

Okay, two things: first you seem to state that it's not right for people to live together when they are not married. Why? Times have changed, within the British society it is socially accepted to move in with your boy-/girlfriend and live together before you (eventually) marry. Does the fact that William is a Royal and lives in a Royal residence make a difference? I don't think so - at least it shouldn't make one. William has many more duties than the average Biton, so he should at least have the same rights. IIRC Edward lived with Sophie at Buckingham Palace before they were married. So it would be no "first" either.

IMHo the only person with a right to have a saying in this is the master or the mistress of the house William would want to live in with his girlfriend. That's the queen when it comes to Buckingham Palace/Kensington Palace/St. James' Palace or prince Charles for Clarence House. Just like in normal life: if you want to move your girlfriend in with your family, you should ask them before you do it.

BTW - the Swedish Royal children live with their partners, too. Both Prince Haakon and Princess Märtha Louise of Norway lived with their later spouses. Frederick and Mary did not share a flat before they maried. It depends on the person and if society is accepting it, I guess. But certainly not on the views of Royal watchers.

 

[Skydragon]

Since William is going to be in the Army for three years..and we assume stationed elsewhere..how do we really know that Kate and William will live together? I assume, like most girlfriends, she would instead visit her boyfriend where ever he happens to be stationed at. Most like she doesn now.

Even with officers, the Armed forces employ a strict policy of only supplying quarters to married couples, so if William wanted to live with a girlfriend wherever he is posted (within reason) he would have to pay for a private hiring. Not a problem if he manages his money carefully.

 

[Skydragon]

And while they should absolutely have their privacy, if they are entirely unanswerable to their subjects and free to do whatever they like without comment, why are they still our royal family?

It was not expected by HM subjects to know everything about the family. They may have had many bedpartners, weird and wonderful habits and pastimes but, loyal subjects (in the majority of the UK and commonwealth countries) did not feel the need to know what they were.

People were grateful when one of the royals graced them or an event with their presence and they left them to have a private life. It was bad form to repeat a conversation you may have had, to repeat gossip about the royals. Most people only read the provocative headlines, they seem unable or unwilling to understand that it may not be the true story, they are all too willing to see the worst in these young men.

As long as William does not commit any crime, as long as the woman he wants to live with is happy about it, as long as his father agrees, then just who are we to judge.

I don't need to know all the grimy little details of peoples lives and that includes the royal family.

 

[Skydragon]

Wow! If William is any indicator on how large the social security benefits are in England, I'm quitting my job and moving there!

The benefits are I believe the same for any British citizen. CH would have to learn to live on a very tight budget. Like Blair, William and his wife/partner would be eligible for Child benefit payments if they had children, although I would hope that unlike Blair, he would not claim it!

 

[kimebear]

This forum is always very educational. I have to admit that, until I read the topic on monarchy and succuession this morning, I had no idea about the monies received from the Crown Estate. It does change my opinion on the taxpayer matter slightly (and I'm a lawyer, so that is very hard to admit ). I shall just have to stick with my opinion that as a future monarch and head of the Church of England, perhaps William should not make a rule of co-habitating with his girlfriends and leave it at that.

 

[Next Star]

I believe in tradition and livining with your boyfreind/girlfreind is not one of them yes times have change but my ideas on being in a relationship has not. Yes William has a lot duties to do but like said before you still date someone and get to know them without livinging with them, < ed >

 

[branchg]

The Crown Estate belongs to the State, not The Sovereign. When a new reign begins, it is traditional for The Sovereign to affirm the surrender of the Crown Estate in exchange for a civil list from Parliament because otherwise they would have to pay for the entire cost of the Government, including the British armed forces! George III surrendered the Crown Estate because he was tired of being on the hook for every expense of the State.

The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are technically the private property of the monarchy, but in reality, they are retained as a function of their royal position and could be seized by Parliament. More likely, they would be surrendered to the State voluntarily if the monarchy was truly abolished.

Their private fortune is substantial and they would be just fine anyway (at least the senior members of the royal family).

 

[Jo of Palatine]

The Crown Estate belongs to the State, not The Sovereign. When a new reign begins, it is traditional for The Sovereign to affirm the surrender of the Crown Estate in exchange for a civil list from Parliament because otherwise they would have to pay for the entire cost of the Government, including the British armed forces! George III surrendered the Crown Estate because he was tired of being on the hook for every expense of the State.

Hm, what about taxes then? The Crown estate is not about taxes, its profit comes from the holdings, lands and investments that belong to what formerly was the private income of the king. The expense of the state would be payed via taxes even if the Crown estate was returned to the Royal family. Or am I wrong here?

 

[branchg]

Yes, of course. But the point is to explain why it was surrendered to Parliament's control, rather than accruing to the The Sovereign personally.

 

[Rose1991]

But certainly not on the views of Royal watchers.

Although I don't mind Prince William and Kate living together it does have a lot to do with the views of, perhaps not "royal watchers", but at least the British citizens because if there were no subjects then there would be no monarchy. If the public consensus is that they do not mind them living together then so be it but as it is our monarchy if the public believe otherwise then their views should respected.

 

[Kat]

He is young and entitled to have a relationship with a girl and live together. But that's very different than marrying her. It would be expected for him to marry an aristocrat and produce heirs with appropriate bloodlines. He would catch a heck of a lot more flak marrying a girl whose mother was a flight attendant.

Hmm, I think he'd catch alot of flak either way. His mother might have been an aristocrat, but I think she, with all her attempts to give her sons as normal a childhood as possible, must have instilled something in him to make him want to flaunt convention, since Kate does not seem to be the conventional Royal girlfriend.

I figure he probably see's the situation as "If I marry an aristocrat for the sake of marrying an aristocrat, then, Kate (the girl I love) and all my Mother's supporters are going to cry foul and If I marry someone like Kate, because I love her, all the monarchy supporters are going to cry the same thing. My Mother (probably) always told me to marry for love, so I think I'll do just that!"

What ever he decides I think he probably knows what he's doing and knows how to deal with it. Either that or he doesn't care, but he's old enough to know the ways of the world.

For me, it doesn't matter so much what he decides to do. It's really just his life & his decision, and although it affects his public image, to my mind, it doesn't really affect that much else.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Maybe I'm not old-fashioned, but so long as both sets of parents are cool with this, I don't understand what the big fuss is over these two living together.

 

[love_cc]

I am against the idea that Prince William living with Kate before they get engaged. There is no objection for them to spend as much time as they want together. But formally living in Clarence House without an engagement is not moral. For Kate Middleton, I am a bit dispointed that she was not from an upper class background or with a better bloodline. But if that is William's choice, just leave it along.I don't think William should sacrifice his martial happiness for his royal duty. Probably just wait and see.

 

[HRH Elizabeth]

For me, it doesn't matter so much what he decides to do. It's really just his life & his decision, and although it affects his public image, to my mind, it doesn't really affect that much else.

It doesn't affect much else who he chooses to make the future queen of the UK? The thing is, as it has been pointed out, he will wield little real political power as king - his public image is a very large part of his job because he is the embodiment of Britain's public image.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I am against the idea that Prince William living with Kate before they get engaged. There is no objection for them to spend as much time as they want together. But formally living in Clarence House without an engagement is not moral. For Kate Middleton, I am a bit dispointed that she was not from an upper class background or with a better bloodline. But if that is William's choice, just leave it along.I don't think William should sacrifice his martial happiness for his royal duty. Probably just wait and see.

How is living together without being engaged not moral? I don't get that. If they received permission to do so, what's the problem?

 

[HRH Elizabeth]

How is living together without being engaged not moral? I don't get that. If they received permission to do so, what's the problem?

Among other things, one problem is the fact that the church over which William will someday be head believes that living together before marriage is a sin...slight problem. Also, in my opinon, moral issues aside, it sets a bad precedent...if this relationship doesn't result in marriage, will all future royal girlfriends move into the palace in succession? Even if her living there doesn't at all burden the tax payers, I can't help but think that moving into the royal palace ought to be predicated by deciding to become royal - i.e. an engagement.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Among other things, one problem is the fact that the church over which William will someday be head believes that living together before marriage is a sin...slight problem. Also, in my opinon, moral issues aside, it sets a bad precedent...if this relationship doesn't result in marriage, will all future royal girlfriends move into the palace in succession? Even if her living there doesn't at all burden the tax payers, I can't help but think that moving into the royal palace ought to be predicated by deciding to become royal - i.e. an engagement.

Obviously the RF doesn't care much about the concept of it being a sin if they let him do it. I think if that truly was an issue, they wouldn't have allowed it.

 

[love_cc]

If William is not sure that Kate is the woman he wants to marry, then he should not live with her or William should never live with any girl before their marriage. Charles once complained that he cannot have a trial marriage with any girl because he is the heir to the throne. I think it is the same case for William.The issue of living together will cause a lot of controversy and future trouble if they two separated.
Then once William is sure about the idea of marrying Kate, he should propose. Just grasp the chance and never let the history repeat itself. However I don't think Kate will give up William until whether William pops up the question ends their relationships. So William will probably end up marrying her anyway. I don't think living together before getting married really makes a big difference. If William loves Kate enough and they two have good communication and shared interests and capability to tolerate other's weakness, their future should be fine. I don't want William or Harry to live some girl before their marriage.

 

[HRH Elizabeth]

Obviously the RF doesn't care much about the concept of it being a sin if they let him do it. I think if that truly was an issue, they wouldn't have allowed it.

The Royal Family might not, but I'm imagining that the Archbishop of Canterbury is hardly jumping for joy.

 

[Skydragon]

As far as we know they don't live together at the moment, they have the use of his rooms (so the press tell us) and as many of you probably know you don't have to have the luxury of an apartment to commit the 'ultimate sin'! This is the 21st century, not the Victorian era, did you all miss the 60's?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I don't know why but somehow sleeping arrangements do not interest me at all. Especially not those who don't happen right in front of me but need gossip to come to my attention...