Royals & Nobles and Wealth, Costs and Finances

[Mademoiselle Lilo]

Does anyone know about the wealth of Jordanian royal family?

i am asking about it too??
i didn't across anything about their fortune and spend seems like a big secret!!!!

 

[Princess B]

im surprised to see the king of Swaziland at 15!!!

 

[Next Star]

All the public can do is guess the estimate of how much they think the royals and aristocrats are worth.I have a feeling that some of the royals or aristocrats are worth more than say while others are less then they say.

 

[HRH Kerry]

True. There is secrecy were it is allowed. With that said it is a two-sided coin.

 

[RoyallyRich]

Monarchy & Royalty;Only for the wealthy?

Do any of you think that the very institutions of Hereditary Monarchy and Nobility are the interests of only the rich?What does our abiding fascination with Royalty say about us?Are we snobbish fanatics?By being
interested in Royalty,are we all secretly aspiring to be blue bloods ourselves?Is Monarchy only well partnered with the Upper Class Aristocrats?Or for all the masses?Do any of you truely and honestly feel that Royalty(both reigning and exiled)are the ultimate icons of wealth,and luxury?

 

[MAfan]

I think that only a Monarchy can warrant to be impartial and that only a King, a Prince who has been educated to be a King and to be IMPARTIAL, can warrant the best to his people. Every elected President or someone similar must come from a politial career, and so he can't be really impartial. A king is not a politician, he can't be a politician, and in this way, although he lives a terrible life (without express any political idea), he can help both the masses and the aristocracy, who has to help him and be a right example for the masses.

 

[Carminha Stalker]

Living in a Republic that was once an Empire and having lived in England which is a monarchy, I think that a King or Queen are much more prepared since childhood to their duties and sacrifices towards the people, than somebody who at the most will stay eight years in government.Besides, most Kings and Queens are aware that they have to prepare their heir for the task and thus, have one more consideration in their heads.

 

[MAfan]

Living in a Republic that was once an Empire and having lived in England which is a monarchy, I think that a King or Queen are much more prepared since childhood to their duties and sacrifices towards the people, than somebody who at the most will stay eight years in government.Besides, most Kings and Queens are aware that they have to prepare their heir for the task and thus, have one more consideration in their heads.

I completely agree with you; I live in a Republic, and I can see that EVERYONE can be someone in the Government...
The other question is: can a king be "human" during his "work", or has he to be in every occasion impartial? I remember what happened whe the Princess of Wales died: the Queen worked as a Queen, respecting only her royal duties and not the feelings, and was severely criticized; but if she would have worked following the feelings, she wouldn't have worked correctly as a Queen... (I hope you can understand my thought)

 

[Count]

Living in a Republic that was once an Empire and having lived in England which is a monarchy, I think that a King or Queen are much more prepared since childhood to their duties and sacrifices towards the people, than somebody who at the most will stay eight years in government.Besides, most Kings and Queens are aware that they have to prepare their heir for the task and thus, have one more consideration in their heads.

You have hit the target Carminha, it is exactly so!

 

[Next Star]

Hmm great question. I think that the people chose upon themseleves what their nation should be.There are some nations that are poor and have a monarchy and some other are rich so the answer is no your nation does not have to be rich to
have a monarchy.

 

[firelight]

One problem with the monarchy system is that the laws of succession could well mean you end up with someone horribly unsuited for the job, while someone more talented and able will be put aside because he/she was not born first / is the wrong gender / descended from the wrong ancestor / married the wrong person, etc. I think monarchies have their role to play but I can't agree with some people I've heard who say they prefer that to a democratically elected government. I don't want the laws of my country to be decided by someone whose only qualification is that they were born in the right time and place to the right family!

As for the question of wealth, I don't think monarchy is only for the wealthy but the existence of a monarchy, especially a politically active one, may tend to foster a more class-conscious society, leading to all the problems of social inequality. Of course we have these problems in republics too, but I do think they're easier to combat in republics (depending on a number of other factors too of course).

 

[Grace Angel]

I think that constitional monarchy avoids the issues of the wrong person coming to the throne to most extents. There are more safe guards then. It seems like a great system to me. Back in the old days, when almost all monarchy wasn't constitional, I think what the last poster mentioned was a valid issue. But nowadays, in the monarchies that survive, it isn't so- and constitional monarchy also is what makes a monarch able to be impartial now. I think monarchy is for the masses, yes. Popularity nowadays among the public is important for the survival of monarchies, although back in the day it was more the support of the upper classes that kept monarchies going. In every society there are inequalities, monarchy or not. I think our fascination with royalty esp. nowadays is a fascination with people, power, money. It isn't so different from an interest in celebrities- only we hold royals most of the time to a higher standard than celebrities, and royal families are more enduring. I'm American and think we don't have our own royalty so we have filled that void with American families we idolize like the Kennedys, or celebrities. Is that so much different than being a fan of royalty? Only the royals have more history and signifigance, often. I think royalty makes history much more interesting, and is a good way to study history.

 

[Jacknch]

I think monarchy in most of its forms is beneficial to all classes of society. Having an impartial royal head of state representing ALL the people is better than having someone who is potentially ambitious for the job and possibly too political representing just some of the people.

The Irish or Icelandic system of presidency is one I am quite respectful of but the American and French presidential system couldn't be more undemocratic because they are policitical roles. It cannot be very democratic or impartial to have your president addressing the nation on television and asking you to vote for a particular political candidate.

I think you have to be quite clear of what you expect your head of state to be and how you wish them to act. IMHO a head of state should have wisdom, knowledge and experience, be caring of all its people, represent the people and the country well, be astute in constitutional matters and have the ability to advise the government in a passive way.

 

[sara-yeah]

Surely the reason behind the huge diffrence in costs, is the number of people and number of "homes" to maintain..The british royal family is very big especialy compared to the danish..!

 

[emmeleia]

What about Victoria??? Has she also a salary? Her brother and sister?

What about Daniel??

 

[Scanorama]

Yeah I too would like to know the cost to run the Swedish royal house.

 

[Jacknch]

I think it will always be very difficult to judge and compare the costs of all the different royal families because when it comes to how much the governments spend on state affairs such as visits by foreign heads of state, the cost involved will differ from country to country. I think there should be some sepration of the costs for the royal family between their private lives and their public lives. If a prince wants to buy a villa in Italy, he should pay for it himself including the costs of security, travel there etc because having a villa in Italy is not a requirement or necessity for carrying out his public duties as a prince. I also wonder whether the costs of staff to run the royal household should be included because employing lots of people is a good thing! When republicans have a go at the costs of having a royal family, they must bear in mind that the costs of presidency will be great too - presidents have many staff, security, and suits to wear!

 

[af01]

The real wealth of the Windors

what about HM Queen Elizabeth 2 of Great Britian? because she is more money! Million? wealth? billionaire?

late Princess Diana's father is also wealth and Dodi Fayed's dad also billionaire

have anymore of Royals who more money!

Sara Boyce

This is infact something I have been very interested in for a while, not the Fayed's money but that of the house of Windsor. It has been quoted for a few years that the Queens personal wealth does not exceed that of £300m/$600m wherever you read it but it is my opinion and that of royal analysts that this figure is grossly underestimated.

I know what you're thinking, 'ah well he's probably confusing state owned property and her personal fortune' but I have put much research into separating the two and it would seem that, much to my surprise and considering the efforts the royals go to proving they do not own it, there is very little that is infact owned by the state in regards to this family.

The more I think about it, the clearer it becomes as this family have been trying to reduce the fortune that they appear to have to dampen any public anger over the vast fortune they control. To a public, if the royals are 'poor' and wield little power then they are seen as more of a symbolic tourist attraction thus making them less of a threat.

I shall now explain what it is they actually control and what makes them a truly remarkable family;

The Windsors (Originally the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) have been ruling the United Kingdom for hundreds of years and in that time they have accumulated one of the most expensive portfolios of property, jewelery and art in the world and despite the media saying otherwise, they have managed to retain control and ownership over a great deal of it.

Lets start with what is largely known as the Windors' biggest loss of property in history; the Crown Estate. Once the personal property of the monarch, the Crown used to control the largest part of the UK, second only to the church. What the media will tell you know is that at the time of George III the crown estate was given to parliament in return for a annual civil list payment, a practice which still continues today. However, what the media often ommits from this information is that this contract between the monarch and parliament was far from final and must be re-signed on every monarch accession to remain legally binding. In effect, George III created a rental agreement which must be renewed every generation and therefore when Charles becomes King he has the option of not signing the 'deal' as he has been quoted by the Times saying he will not. If he decides to create a new precedent in his family then he will become the sole owner of the 272,000 acre estate worth £7bn and forfeit the measly civil list payment his family is used to.

Also, when Charles becomes King he will automatically become the Duke of Lancaster and thus inherit his mothers personal estate, the Duchy of Lancaster which is valued at £350m (this is the figure usually used to value the Queen)

Furthermore, there is the property that is supposedly in trust for the nation; ie. the palaces and the crown jewels. Try looking for it! there is no record of any trust set up for the nation, as far as the law is concerned these are still the private property of the Monarch and Buckingham Palace is reportedly worth over £1bn alone with another £17bn secured for the nation including the crown jewels (including one of the biggest diamonds in the world) which is said to be worth between £3bn and £5bn.

This is a rough estimation of what the British royal family is worth;

1 x Crown Estate £7bn
1 x Duchy of Lancaster £350m
1 x Property held in trust for nation £14bn
1 x Crown Jewels £3bn
1 x Art collection (Inc. many Da Vinci paintings) £priceless
1 x Investment in Bluechip companies £unknown
=
£24.35bn excluding the unknown figures

So there you have it, the British royals are actually as wealthy, if not more so than the Saudi's. They have done a marvelous job at confusing their ownership and hiding behind a veil of ignorance. I have no doubt that this is not accurate and there is probably much more to consider but I am 100% certain that this family has a fortune worth vastly more than the quoted £300m.

 

[Harold]

Does anyone know the relative wealth of former royals? The familes of Habsburg, Hohenzollern, Wittelsbach, Wettin, Wurttemburg, Baden, Oldenburg, Mecklinburg, Hesse, Savoy, Brangaza, Romanov?

 

[af01]

Prince Of Wales income

"HRH The Prince of Wales funds himself through funds raised by the Duchy of Cornwall."

I read in the french paper Le Monde some days ago that the 24th Duke of Cornwalles has a real estate company, too. He is very rich.

He receives around about £15/16m a year from the duchy which controls the 135,000 acres in the South of England and Wales and the property company which is currently building a major development in Dorchester, Dorset which is not expected to be completely finished until 2025 called Poundbury.

Although the Prince of Wales is entitled to the income of the Duchy, he is not entitled to the capital (£700m assets).

 

[susan alicia]

some of them are poor as church mice, have a lot of children and a big house to keep up, marrying money is a convenient solution.

Does anyone know the relative wealth of former royals? The familes of Habsburg, Hohenzollern, Wittelsbach, Wettin, Wurttemburg, Baden, Oldenburg, Mecklinburg, Hesse, Savoy, Brangaza, Romanov?

 

[MAfan]

I know the Hesse own several castles, including the Schlosshotel Kronberg, and are wine productors; I don't know their wealth, but they I think they have several sources of earning...

 

[lyndaW]

How much did Iran's Pahlavi family get to keep.............they had some fantastic jewelry...................do they still have a number of these beautiful peices

 

[Warren]

The serious jewels were largely State property and not private property so they remained in Iran.
They are today on display in the Treasury of National Jewels which is part of the Central Bank of Iran.

 

[fortimo]

why Sweden has less then Norway
Hi!

This is my first post here. I´m Swedish, the king has a good relationship with the goverment. In a Swedish paper not long time ago it´s said that the king has asked for more money because the king needs it for the cp he pays her for her official things she is doing and he also pays the rest of his kids with his money.

The reason Sweden has less money then the norwiegen is a few things. 1st the Swedish royalfamily did loose a lot on the market. 2nd Norway has Oil and we don´t

Take care of yourself

Marie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms Griffin
What I don't get are the differences between these 3:
How can Harald have so much and the other 2 so less. I mean, a century ago Norway and Sweden were one. And when they split the norwegians wanted a danish prince. Even if you assume a rather big dowry for Maud, the difference is a bit too much, isn't it? How big could the dowry have been anyway back in the day, around 1900? Then you have Märtha who was swedish. If we go by Carl Gustav's alleged fortune, Märtha's dowry couldn't have been much. And after her we have Sonja, who probably didn't bring in millions. Are we to assume that the norwegian consultants are so much better than the swedish and danish ones? That doesn't add up, IMO.


If he or the family breeds ponies, too, those aren't that many. There are lots of non- billionaire breeders with more ponies/ horses.



Yes, I also read that the norwegian royal family is in the oil-business and they had luck, so they are not "poor" anymore...

 

[principessa]

Here is the newest Forbes list of the worlds richest royals:

In Pictures: World's Richest Royals - Forbes.com

 

[wedmonds]

That's what I heard too about the Liechtensteins. From what I read, the taxpayers used to reimburse them for the cost of security, but either Hans Adam II or his father stopped it. So all the expenses the Liechtenstein incur, they pay from their own money.

Yes, I too heard that exact same thing. The Liechtenstein Royals pay for themselves. They don't do extravagant spending like other royals at the tax payers expense. The monarchy there is actually very good for that country because it doesn't cost the tax payer a dime. And it brings in money into the country, so the royals give way more than what they receive. That is the one thing that I admire about that country!

 

[wedmonds]

im surprised to see the king of Swaziland at 15!!!

I saw that as well. I was appauled at how someone like that could have all of that money when the country is so poor. BUT, I don't think that he should be on that list. The King of Swaziland is actually very broke. When you look at it, the $200 M. that he is suppose to have is actually in trust for the Swazi Nation. The King is actually very broke. He just spends his issue's money. That money belongs to that country. He instead spends the money on luxury cars and expensive palaces. That is just awful!

 

[wedmonds]

Here is the newest Forbes list of the worlds richest royals:

In Pictures: World's Richest Royals - Forbes.com

I just read that. Isn't it amazing how all of those royals net worth's went down over this past year. The King of Thailand is still the richest though!

 

[Warren]

I doubt the average Liechtensteiner would have any complaints about the level of taxation, even if the Reigning Prince did receive money from the State.
According to the Liechtenstein Government portal the maximum rate of personal income tax is 17%.

By way of comparison, the maximum effective income tax rate in the United States is about 30%, Britain 30% (with a new marginal tax rate of 50%), Germany 40%, while Sweden has a top marginal tax rate of 57%.