Who actually owns the Crown Jewels.  The Queen or the British People?
83374
As I understand it, they are owned by the monarch (in this case, Queen Elizabeth II) but she does not have the legal right to sell them - in essence, she owns them because she personifies the nation but not as an individual.
589629
No one, they are a Constitutional monarchy\nKing & Prime Minister
514420
At the moment it is a democracy/constitutional monarchy, where the queen is the head of state but does not wield any power.\n\nPreviously Britain has been ruled by an absolute monarchy within a feudal system as well as having Oliver Cromwell, who, I guess, would be described as a president at a time when representational democracy did not really happen (1641?)
286969
They are just exotic enough to be interesting and not so exotic to be off-putting.  \n\nWe don't have anything like royalty in our country.  (The current Kennedys just aren't that glamorous and Hollywood stars come and go)  The trappings of royalty and the nobility fascinate a lot of Americans, probably because we don't have knighthoods and huge fairy tale TV weddings. \n\nBut we don't really pay attention to anybody else's royals either. I think we're comfortable with the English because we share a language and a history with you.  Nobody really wants Queen Elizabeth as a figurehead at the top of our government, but we can't help but feel we have some claim to her too.
770406
In a book a few years ago I read how the Sovereign, early in the Reign, "voluntarily" turns over to Parliament a huge sum of income per year and, in return receives a stipulated "Civil List" payments for Sovereign and a few other members of the Royal Family (most of whom accept many engagements etc. -- visits, openings, etc., etc.).   I don't remember specific numbers but do seem to remember that actually the Family relinquishes more than they receive.\n=====================\nWhen The Queen acceded to the throne in 1952, she agreed, as every monarch before her from the time of George III, that all revenues from the Crown Estate would be handed over to the Government in return for an annual payment from Parliament to meet the official costs of the monarchy. \n\nYou have already documented the profit made by the Crown Estate. For the same period, Head of State expenditure was £35.3 million. This figure represents the official cost to Government of running the monarchy. It includes the Civil List, (which meets the costs of The Queen's official Household), Grants-in-Aid (which cover property upkeep, communications and travel) and expenditure met directly from Governmental Departments (such as the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office), but excludes security (a matter for the Home Office and the Police).\n\nIt is not a form of payment for The Queen. It is used to meet the official costs of her household, working for The Queen as Head of State. Parliamentary Annuities are paid to other members of the Royal Family in recognition of their official duties. Since 1993, however, The Queen has repaid all of these parliamentary annuities to the Treasury, except the annuity paid to The Duke of Edinburgh. The Queen therefore meets all the official costs of all other members of the Royal Family (The Duke of York, The Earl and Countess of Wessex, The Princess Royal, The Dukes and Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester and Princess Alexandra) who carry out official duties. The Prince of Wales derives his income from the Duchy of Cornwall.\n\nIt is not true to say that there is an official line from the Palace which states that the Monarchy gives more to the government than it receives. The official costs of the British monarchy are very open and publicly documented. Annual reports for the Civil List and the Grants-in-aid are laid before Parliament, and they can be viewed in great detail on the Royal web site. Details of profits made by the Crown Estate can be viewed on the Crown Estate web site.
296335
Technically, Britain is a constitutional monarchy... and the fact that the police and army and MPs etc have to swear allegiance to her is outrageous (the Queen is also head of the Church of England, of course, and Britain is now a secular multi-cultural country, and proud of it). Laws cannot be passed in this country without the Queen's signature. And as a previous messager said, they are anyway greedy parasites who have the IQ of an amoeba between them because they are all inbred. What right do they and the rest of the so-called aristocracy have to their wealth? Did they earn it by honest toil? Or did they steal it at the point of a sword? Let's be done with them all. Stuff them all and put them in Madame Tussauds. The wasters.
285933
It's actually Commonwealth.\nThe Oxford Dictionary (1992) says it's an association of the United Kingdom with states that were previously part of the British Empire. Basically it's made up of countries that still accept the British Monarchy (we have Queen Elizabeth on our money).We used to be part of the British Empire. Countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand...
380650
what does this have to do with royalty?
485050
You are absolutely right. There's been intermittent protest about this issue. One answer is that the style (title) of the monarch is a matter of royal prerogative, which trumps the union and settlement questions. In Scotland, she's now, technically, Elizabeth, Queen of Scots, but the style changes depending upon where she is and whom she's appearing on behalf of.\n\n[The response that asks if you're stupid is completely uncalled for. The user obviously didn't read and understand the question. It's a sad state of affairs when people get on their high horses, only to embarrass themselves like that. You've asked a great question.]
527080
The British Commonwealth
423762
She is the head of state of more than 70 different countries around the world.  Quite honestly, she is the most powerful person on the planet.  The commonwealth of Great Britain means that the Queen is the top official of countries like England, Scotland, Australia, even India.  If she so wanted, she could dissolve every single government she is the head of and replace the leaders with a person of her choosing.  This happened in Australia in the 1970's when the Governor General, a subordinate to the queen dissolved parliament.  She wouldn't of course, but she could, and that's what's scary about countries still flying under the monarchy.\n\nMore typically, she's the repersenative for gifts from other countries, represents England at formal ceremonies, bestows the status of knight (sir), etc.
989343
Yesterday's newspaper reported that it currently costs the British people $70 million dollars a year to maintain the Monarchy.\n\nConsidering the fact that the Monarchy plays no role in running the British Government, and makes no decisions or policy whatsoever, I think it's high time the British people dissolve the Monarchy and spend their money on ANYTHING better.\n\nPerhaps they should spend the money on paving the grass at Wimbledon with asphalt so they can finally have a more meaningful tennis tournament on hard-court that fairly decides the best player.
464529
Officially they hold none.  Most royals in England hold the same sway as top celebrities in the U.S. do.  The Queen's job is to entertain diplomats and world leaders who visit England.  Except for those in line for the throne English royals have no official royal duties.
693336
King George VI\nhttp://www.royal.gov.uk/OutPut/Page147.asp
111917
who cares? there will be a bried court intrigue, and some cousin would emerge. Or they'll have a queen (it works for Britain, right?).
349231
Either Queen Elizabeth II............. or Elton John
821133
I believe this "jewel in the crown" is a refrence to India under the British rule.  India was Britain's colony during the Victorian Era and it provided much wealth and resources to the British hence the jewel.  It was in the crown because it was considered part of the British Royal Empire or the crown.