The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #301  
Old 08-23-2008, 02:24 PM
Mademoiselle Lilo's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
Picture of the Month Representative - Morocco
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: T/H, Morocco
Posts: 5,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jia View Post
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!!!!
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 08-24-2008, 12:45 PM
Princess B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NA, Spain
Posts: 177
im surprised to see the king of Swaziland at 15!!!
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 09-03-2008, 03:56 PM
Next Star's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 872
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.
__________________
Patience is a virtue.

I'm head of a dynastic house no matter what others say.
Princess Kamorrissa,Countess of Welle
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 09-03-2008, 10:48 PM
HRH Kerry's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Up the street,hang a left,3rd house from the corner, United States
Posts: 1,626
True. There is secrecy were it is allowed. With that said it is a two-sided coin.
__________________
Princely Family of Liechtenstein Forum
Join in on the discussions.
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 09-20-2008, 12:48 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 43
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?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 11-06-2008, 11:39 AM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,366
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 11-06-2008, 11:51 AM
Carminha Stalker's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Posts: 1,699
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 11-06-2008, 12:05 PM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carminha Stalker View Post
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)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 11-07-2008, 07:29 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Italy, Italy
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carminha Stalker View Post
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!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 11-07-2008, 05:20 PM
Next Star's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 872
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.
__________________
Patience is a virtue.

I'm head of a dynastic house no matter what others say.
Princess Kamorrissa,Countess of Welle
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 11-30-2008, 01:12 PM
firelight's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Gotham City, Niue
Posts: 114
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).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 12-10-2008, 02:37 AM
Grace Angel's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa, United States
Posts: 462
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 01-23-2009, 11:51 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,871
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.
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 02-05-2009, 06:27 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 5
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..!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 02-25-2009, 11:50 AM
emmeleia's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Patra, Greece
Posts: 377
What about Victoria??? Has she also a salary? Her brother and sister?

What about Daniel??
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 03-03-2009, 03:24 AM
Scanorama's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 32
Yeah I too would like to know the cost to run the Swedish royal house.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 03-03-2009, 06:40 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,871
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!
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 03-29-2009, 07:03 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2
The real wealth of the Windors

Quote:
Originally Posted by sara1981 View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 03-29-2009, 03:39 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 320
Does anyone know the relative wealth of former royals? The familes of Habsburg, Hohenzollern, Wittelsbach, Wettin, Wurttemburg, Baden, Oldenburg, Mecklinburg, Hesse, Savoy, Brangaza, Romanov?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 04-03-2009, 03:59 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2
Prince Of Wales income

Quote:
Originally Posted by tan_berry View Post
"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).
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Royal Wealth and Finances Smartie2091 British Royals 866 10-18-2014 05:07 PM
Wealth and Finances of the Spanish Royal Family hrhcp Royal Family of Spain 111 10-12-2014 05:39 PM
Costs and Finances of the Belgian Royal Family Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 64 07-27-2013 05:49 AM
Wealth of the Luxembourg Grand Ducal Family hillary_nugent Grand Ducal Family of Luxembourg 70 12-14-2010 03:43 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events dutch royal history fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman poland pom pregnancy president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:53 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]