I understand The Sun has already reported she has been in videos on a website called Pornhub. They had to issue an apology because the video clips were unrelated. But they still did it.

Because the rock star bought the estate, he has legal title to it, he can dispose of it as he wishes. Charles can do none of these things. Effectively it's a posh council house with free rent and a big allotment.

The Crown owns it and the proceeds from it, unless the monarch grants the Duchy to an eldest child. Whilst Charles is in possession of it, he is using Crown assets to keep himself, and my original point about this is, that while it isn't a direct handout from the taxpayer a la Civil List or Sovereign Grant, it's not exactly free to the nation... he is "depriving" the Crown of the income while he is in "tenancy".

Since your premise continues to be that the Sovereign Grant is a "direct handout from the taxpayer" I don't think there's any basis to continue the debate. The Crown Estate is not Government property; nor is it the personal landholding of the monarch. Revenues from the Crown Estate, managed by its Commissioners, are paid to the Government, and a fraction of that revenue (actually, of two years ago's revenue) is returned through the Sovereign Grant. All of which are in turn governed by various Acts of Parliament that have been periodically amended and updated over the last 700 years or so.

And if you're a Commonwealth realm you get your head of state for free!*

*Governor-General sold separately.

Your premise seems to be that the monarch and the institutions of the United Kingdom are somehow separate. The monarch is only there because of the will of the people, and everything that accords to the monarch is therefore a grant of the people.

Yes.

I think the PoV is that all Crown Estate revenue would fall into the nations coffers if the Monarchy , in the form of the actual people, were removed.

Of course if the Crown is removed, then who then holds and manages said estate. My personal preference is ...wait for it... the Monarchy.

As you are likely aware, the crown owns all land despite what people think when they "purchase" real estate. All they are actually purchasing is a type of estate. This is the case irrespective of the "will of the people."

It seems to me that your issue with the royals is that they are recipients of "welfare", however that is defined and, from that perspective, they are pretty much identical to the entire population of the UK.

You're all dancing around the central question, what's the point of them?

So if the people decided that they didn't want a monarchy, what would happen to all the land? More to the point, who owned all the land prior to the crown, and how did the crown acquire it?

As I said earlier, I am comfortable with the notion of a monarchy, it seems to appeal to a sizeable proportion of the population. I am, however, very uncomfortable with the apparent acceptance that this monarchy lives a life of quite remarkable and unapologetic luxury and indulgence.

Honestly I don't see the big deal, they do their thing, I do mine, live and let live. Personally I have always loved history and tradition is continuation of that history, its probably why I like the premise of the monarchy.

The Queen has given up her entire life out of duty to represent the UK and the commonwealth, and was denied a normal "free" life from birth. So I personally don't begrudge the lady her "luxury" life in exchange.

You could say the same about the Kardashians however they serve no purpose whatsoever, are utterly talentless, but seem to have a whole lot of money for not doing anything.

Continuity of history, head of state, and coinage/postage stamp model.

Those are powerful arguments.

I rather agree. However I am neither expected to offer subservience or loyalty to the Kardashians, nor pay for their luxuries.

QE2 I also agree with in the main. As I have said before, my issue is with the less committed but equally well treated extended family.

Royal Prerogative is a good one. Its never been put to the test but the Queen could over ride a rogue government. Its a good safety net to have especially in this day and age.

Whether it would be exercised though is another matter....

+1

I think things will change once the Queen pops her clogs, less hangers on, fewer people entitled to an income etc.

Having said that, the cost to the British taxpayer in real terms is around 65p per person, per year. With the revenue generated by tourism etc., by the Royal family, I think that's quite a bargain.