My issue is not primarily with access but with control. Any change of control would not mean the palaces would be emptied of everything they formerly contained, they would still decorate Buckingham Palace, St James’, Kensington, Windsor, The Tower, Hampton Court, Holyroodhouse, Edinburgh, Kew and Hillsborough. Control relates to security, that is security of ownership. The change would be how it is regarded.

As regards Hanover, the items are being handed over, much like the acceptance in lieu scheme, that sounds to me like when the Duke of Norfolk handed over the Madagascar Portrait on the condition it continue to hang at Arundel Castle. In this case they already primarily belong to the people. My feeling is it is too great a collection to be managed the way it is, it is too centred and too important for it to be not shared. The changes to the Wallace collection, the V&A, The Tate show that sharing is becoming a necessity and I feel that the BRF’s behaviour is very different to most other countries. What the Swedes have done is such a great example of an attitude to protecting what they have and sharing while continuing to use it for its original purpose. Queen Mary’s distribution of her jewels shows that she wanted it to be shared but recently there has been very little. Much smaller collections share (loan) more generously than the vast collection the Queen has with her 25 tiaras. Giving it away means it’s sold but at the same time some items are personal like the Meander Tiara or Burmese Ruby Tiara, or Princes Louise Sapphire Tiara and I do accept that many items are personal.

You mention that I conflate ownership with lack of access, instead what I say is that an object in a room that I am not allowed to access because of my family lineage is unfair and contradicts the RC mission statement I quoted earlier of encouraging access. Of course sometimes ownership does deny access such as as access to the royal archive which many historians have written is denied to them because it is treated as a family archive, which when you consider that it is probably the best archive dealing with the abdication is dangerous. Withholding information that had such a profound effect across the empire to save embarrassment surely shows that in this case they are not deserving of that ultimate control. I’m sure they would argue that these are private family letters etc but they are also state records are at the very least control should be discussed. I’m worried about the presumptions that the way things are is they way they should be, just because they are.

I am not comparing the British monarchy to the Thai, I am comparing the reverence that King Rama IX was treated with to how The Queen is treated. I feel that the institution as a whole is taking advantage of this to gain legally and financially by daring the others to disagree so they can accuse them of being disrespectful to an elderly woman who has served country her for over seventy years when all they are trying to do is further her legacy by restoring a palace for a couple of hundred million pounds.

Link to article about refusal to sign bill
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills