Oh, the expression is of little importance to me as well, what I am more interested in is the ownership itself (in various scenarios). I think it is debatable who would keep these pieces were the Monarchy to be abolished ( I insist on this scenario as it is the ultimate ownership "test").
I understand your point about their "going with the job", but I still think the last Sovereign would have a strong claim to them. Such a claim would, of course, depend on the circumstances of such a dramatic change (as you pointed out) and, also, on the wordings of the bequest "documents" and how they would be interpreted at that point.
I wonder to what extent these things are clear for Roberts, other authors, people in the Royal Household, or even the Queen herself. Some things are probably quite blurry and evolve, as the whole official gift issue showed us a few years ago. Anyway, it has been great to exchange thoughts on this subject, makes my understanding of the matter evolve !
PS Point taken about the "new Government" wording, it was I who was not being clear on that point. --Previous Message-- : : Ok. I see your thinking. : But I have no difficulty with the expression : for jewels and similar property. Simply : stuff that goes with the job. : : Edit: I must add two points. : : The heirlooms of the crown "go with the : job" so they would not revert to the : individuals when they leave the job. : : Not to "the government" either. : Let's keep that body out of all this. Any : elected government is never a candidate for : "ownership" rights: not even : parliament. : The State or the Nation are enough. : : But this does show how changing the status : of a piece of property to "heirloom of : the crown" does remove the piece from : family coffers for all time. My : understanding, of course. : : --Previous Message-- : You can put Crown instead of State in my : previous message and it is the same idea : (even though the State is a much wider : concept, of course). : What I was pointing out is that calling : these jewels Heirlooms of the Crown, or : jewels belonging to the Crown is, in my : theory, a source of confusion for some. : I think they are not the property of the : Crown/State in the same way as Buckingham : Palace or the Crown Estate is, where things : are very clear (ie they are State property). : I would argue they are entailed on the Queen : and Her successors as Sovereigns. Should : that change, the entail would end and they : would revert to the individuals and not the : new Government. : : : : --Previous Message-- : : Alex - I'm not sure that we do understand : each other. I would leave "the : State" out of this crown business. : : "the State" is a concept too : which, in this day and age could mean : anything! : If we got opinions from a dozen QCs we would : probably have a dozen different opinions. : : I think "the State" means the : people, the parliament, and the crown. All : of that and possibly more. : : : --Previous Message-- : I just read your explanation below and I am : happy you see my point! What annoys me is : much too often the press or some authors : infer some of these "Crown" items : belong to the State in the same way the : Crown Estate does and I think that is wrong. : "Heirlooms of the Crown" is an : interesting way to put it, but I think : "heirlooms of the Monarch" would : have been even more to the point if our : theory is indeed correct. : : : : : : : : : :
on January 11, 2014, 1:52 pm, in reply to "