Royals & Nobles and Wealth, Costs and Finances


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Lady Louise is not a princess because at the time of her parents marriage, Edward and Sophie DECIDED with the Queen's backing that children born to them would take the courtesy titles of an earl rather than the HRH title...which she would have been if Edward did not want to change the rules to ensure their children lead normal lives.

BTW....there was a story where the Queen did ask Anne if she wanted her children to be titled or not.......EVEN THOUGH THEIR FATHER REFUSED A PEERAGE....Anne still said no.

Letters of Patent may be changed by the Queen for specific purposes...they are not always set in stone and may be amended where needed.
 
lashinka2002 said:
Does anyone know if when Princess Beatrice & Eugiene become of age will they have royal duties and be supported by the civil list or will they make carrers of their own and derrive income from that?

These days the Civil List is very much restricted, so they almost certainly won't be paid by it even if they do engage in public duties. It's possible that, as the current generation of royals ages and retires (I'm thinking of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent and Princess Alexandra here, as well as the Duke of Edinburgh and even the Queen - not retiring in her case, but cutting back on her engagements), they'll spend some time doing public duties if Prince Harry is unavailable through being in the Army and before Prince William has a family of his own who are able to take part in public life.

After a long period with an extended royal family including the Queen, Prince Philip, the Queen Mother, Princess Margaret, the Queen's children (and some of their spouses for the times they actually had spouses), the Gloucesters (including Princess Alice), the Kents (including Princess Marina until the late 1960s), and Princess Alexandra all engaged in public life, the royal family is shrinking quite dramatically now as the focus shifts to Charles and his two children and as the Gloucester and Kent families become seen more as members of the "old court" but the Queen's grandchildren aren't yet old enough to take on the duties. Since there seems to be less public demand for royals (as opposed to celebrities) to do public engagements, this may not be a bad thing.
 
It may be just me who misunderstands this whole thing, but the Civil List? In reality? Doesn't it just support the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh? I've heard that the Queen pays it back for what she gets for the other royals.

It does nowadays, but up until the 1990s any royal who performed official duties was paid from the Civil List. After the antics of some of the younger royals and the extravagances and divorces, and after it became clear that the public wasn't happy about being expected to pay for the restoration of Windsor Castle after the fire, one of the things that was done - along with having the Queen pay taxes - was to restrict the Civil List to the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, and the Queen Mother. Other members of the royal family who perform public duties are now paid by the government but the Queen reimburses the government for those costs.

I always thought it was unfair that because of high-profile idiocies by the likes of the Duchess of York and Prince Edward (I'm thinking about the Royal Knockout debacle in particular), civil list income was withdrawn from people like the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Princess Alice, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, and Princess Alexandra, who had spent decades devoted to pubic service and, in the case of the Duchess of Kent, had her health wrecked in the process. It seems like a rather sad case of punishing the wrong people.
 
I'm sorry, but I''m not sure if I get the point of some of your 'arguments'.
Lady Louise is not a princess because at the time of her parents marriage, Edward and Sophie DECIDED with the Queen's backing that children born to them would take the courtesy titles of an earl rather than the HRH title...which she would have been if Edward did not want to change the rules to ensure their children lead normal lives.
Actually, the decision was made to control the size of the RF, as the issue of Edward are the children of a younger child of a sovereign. Sure Edward and Sophie may also have wanted for their children to lead "normal lives". And it was for the former reason that there was talk a few years ago of removing the HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie upon their 18th birthday (or at the time of marriage).

BTW....there was a story where the Queen did ask Anne if she wanted her children to be titled or not.......EVEN THOUGH THEIR FATHER REFUSED A PEERAGE....Anne still said no.
Why are you shouting in all caps? It doesn't make your argument any more valid. It is well known that the title was declined, however, in any case, a noble title doesn't make one a member of the royal family (which is what we're discussing, non?). It would have only made them members of the aristocracy. Angus Ogilvy also refused a title at the time of his marriage. not out of want for a 'normal life' per se, but rather because he is a member of an aristocratic family with a long history (the Earls of Arlie). His family advised him to do 'no such silly thing as to except a title'.

Letters of Patent may be changed by the Queen for specific purposes...they are not always set in stone and may be amended where needed.
Your point? They can be amended, I guess, depending on the type of patent, however, AFAIK, it has been the convention to issue newLetters Patent with respect to titles and/or exceptions regarding titles. None of this matters, however, because it has nothing to do with the *fact* that, as of today, neither the children of Queen's daughter and cousins are members of the RF.
 
Last edited:
His Lordship]Officially??

I take it you work or are related to Her Majesty?

No. Are you? Since you're the one arguing by assertion.In any case, I've studied the subject for years. Moreover, it has been much discussed on the various royalty boards over the years by well-known scholars on the subject. I would suggest you go through the archives of alt.talk.royalty for more commentary and analysis by them on the issue (if you're interestd, that is)​

LOL......I think we the people can be more snobbish and rigid about right and wrong, official or not official, than the royals.

Sorry Sean...they are all part of the extended royal family.
Nothing snobish about it. It's just stating a fact. In any case, that they are royal is your opinion, and it is obvious that there is no changing that, even though it is contradicted even by the royal house itself. See its official page. And, out of curiosity, since you hold Anne's children to be members of the RF, do you also hold that the Harwoods and all their proginy are members of the RF, too? What about the Fifes?

So we have a matter of opinion...that's fine by me.

So the children may not have titular dignity....that does not make them royal.

A title doesn't necessarily make one royal.

Little Marius is an exception as he was not born to anyone in the Royal Family but came by virtue of his mother's marriage to be a member of the King's family.
Here we agree. However, speaking for myself, I really worry about him as he gets older. It will be difficult for him to be emotionally difficult for him, and I hope he doesn't have a troubled adolesence or adulthood.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for giving me some laughs today. I love it when people who do not know the aristocracy and royalty of Great Britain personally presume just because they studied them, are British, read the gossip sheets, etc. know them as if they know them personally like their mum and dads.



That is like me making comments on you without knowing you personally. I can’t do it, as it is not fair to make assumptions.



Yes, I am related actually. My maternal grandfather is a duke who is a cousin to the queen and my mother is a friend of Princess Anne's. Out of respect for my grandparents, I will not publish here their dukedom.

I have met all the children of the Queen on a few occasions and have went to Eaton with many members of the aristocracy. I was a few years ahead of William though.



I think some people on here due to the length of time they have been posting and their "titles" under their monikers think they are experts.



I have never claimed to be such at all.



By the way, I went to Edward and Sophie's wedding and my mother has talked with Sophie about their decision not to have their children take the HRH....it was their choice and the Queen backed them on it as they felt it would release their children from some of the expectations that come along with that HRH.






They are distant cousins descended from the female line, and the Earl Of Harewood fell out of royal favor from court because he divorced and remarried. He even had to give up several of his patronages.



The male line descendents families from George V still count as royalty, are part of the royal family, and are very visible on certain royal occasions...all the Kents and all the Gloucesters.

Just because some are more visible than others in and around London does make one any less important.


Zara is a member and as such, she received her first patronage role not two years ago. She may not get money from the Civil List to live off of, but that is a moot point in this case.



Just because some have titles and some do not, does not make them any less a member of the royal family.



The same for HRH Prince Philip, he was born a Greek prince, to the son of a Greek king...just because he denounced his title and line to the throne of Greece to become a citizen of Britain, does not make him any less royal.



The definition of "Royal Family" is the Queen, Prince Philip, their four children, and William and Harry. Everyone else is still part of the royal family and is considered the lesser royals or junior members. The descriptions may be a little ambiguous in that respect.



Now, with that said, seeing as though you claim to be by your choice of words the expert here, I will let you know I respect your views and insight. They are well thought out.



But, I doubt there are many on here that knows personally the men and women in all the forums.



It is one thing to study, read, listen to the gossip, read the official websites, and it is quite another to know and grow up with these people.



Thank you.
 
And now...can we please go back to discussing the Civil List and extravagent Royal spending? The real purpose of this forum.

Does anyone in Britain know when the Keeper of Privy Purse will publish the breakdown of expenditures for 2005 for the Royals?
 
It is one thing to study, read, listen to the gossip, read the official websites, and it is quite another to know and grow up with these people.

Equally, it's one thing to say these things on a discussion board and another thing to actually be what one claims to be. We've had an awful lot of personal friends and relations of the British royal family (and other royal families) wander through here in the past if they're to be believed. Bit surprising that they'd find this discussion board worth bothering about. Anybody can claim anything with the anonymity of a keyboard and monitor to assist them. And most of us have seen enough cases of people not being who they claim to be that we don't tend to take these claims at face value any more.
 
Going back to this topic... well, to be honest, I wouldn't define their expending as extravagant, but just as... royal. :rolleyes:

By the way, I've never understood people's anger when they had to contribute for Windsor Castle restauration. It is not only the Queen's home, but also a national (and, I would say, world) heritage (and it's a state property, not the Queen's).

I would not have excluded the others royals from the Civil List. I agree that Princesses Beatrice and Eugene retain the HRH and that they perform official duties with money from the Civil List.

And I would give a new yatch to them. They were cruel towards the Queen and her family, because they enjoyed Britannia, especially, I think, Prince Philip, who loves sea and ships so much. I became even more angry when I discovered, very recently, that PM Major's plan was to substitute the old yatch with a smaller one. Unfortunately Blair came to the power that year... :mad:

It has been suggested to scrap the train too. I don't think it would be a good idea. Without it the Queen would be forced to sleep in hotels and to travel by elicopter or plane (would they be more cheap?). With the train she can save time by sleeping on it while travelling.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad I could make you laugh. FYI, you returned the favour, as I found your assertions rather sophmoric. And I don't read the gossip rags,btw.

Regardless, the individuals in question are members of the *Queen's* family and not the royal family. You are wrong if you think otherwise, no matter what your alleged connections are (which I highly doubt). And just because I'm not 'related' or work for them, doesn't mean that that I don't know them. I'm just not willing to argue by assertion by claiming to know X person. In my experience, nebulous assertions of 'knowing so and so-and so personally' is a cop-out argument when one can't back-up one's arguments with facts. You claim that the young Philips, Gloucesters, Kents, etc. are members of the royal family but have not backed-up your argument. But I shall leave you to your opinion (which I do respect, btw).

And, for the record, scholars very often*do* know more than the royals themselves. There are many royal scholars who post on these boards who are contacted on a regular basis by royals for geneological information etc. on their own families because it is their area of *specialty*. And there are members of the aristocracy who haven't got a clue as to who is who and how the whole system works. Once again, I would refer you to the archives of alt. talk. royalty for erudite discussions on these subjects.

Furthermore, the Earl of Harewood & family are _not_distant relatives. They are first cousins of Her Majesty. If you claim the Princess Royal's children are royal (female-line descendants) so why not the children and grandchildren of Princess Mary, who was also a Princess royal? Indeed, by your argument they should be even more royal because their father/grandfather was titled. And what about the Fife's? Royal or not? Do hold the children of the Earl of Ulster et al. to be royal as well?

Just because some are more visible than others in and around London does make one any less important.


You actually believe that someone who is 20th in line for the throne is just as important as #1 & 2?


Finally, with regards to Phillip's renunciation, it wasn't valid in Greece.

Oh, and AFAIK, it's Eton and not "Eaton". Are they sticklers for proper grammar and punctuation, btw? ;-)


His Lordship said:
Thank you for giving me some laughs today. I love it when people who do not know the aristocracy and royalty of Great Britain personally presume just because they studied them, are British, read the gossip sheets, etc. know them as if they know them personally like their mum and dads.



That is like me making comments on you without knowing you personally. I can’t do it, as it is not fair to make assumptions.



Yes, I am related actually. My maternal grandfather is a duke who is a cousin to the queen and my mother is a friend of Princess Anne's. Out of respect for my grandparents, I will not publish here their dukedom.

I have met all the children of the Queen on a few occasions and have went to Eaton with many members of the aristocracy. I was a few years ahead of William though.



I think some people on here due to the length of time they have been posting and their "titles" under their monikers think they are experts.



I have never claimed to be such at all.



By the way, I went to Edward and Sophie's wedding and my mother has talked with Sophie about their decision not to have their children take the HRH....it was their choice and the Queen backed them on it as they felt it would release their children from some of the expectations that come along with that HRH.






They are distant cousins descended from the female line, and the Earl Of Harewood fell out of royal favor from court because he divorced and remarried. He even had to give up several of his patronages.



The male line descendents families from George V still count as royalty, are part of the royal family, and are very visible on certain royal occasions...all the Kents and all the Gloucesters.


Zara is a member and as such, she received her first patronage role not two years ago. She may not get money from the Civil List to live off of, but that is a moot point in this case.



Just because some have titles and some do not, does not make them any less a member of the royal family.



The same for HRH Prince Philip, he was born a Greek prince, to the son of a Greek king...just because he denounced his title and line to the throne of Greece to become a citizen of Britain, does not make him any less royal.




The definition of "Royal Family" is the Queen, Prince Philip, their four children, and William and Harry. Everyone else is still part of the royal family and is considered the lesser royals or junior members. The descriptions may be a little ambiguous in that respect.



Now, with that said, seeing as though you claim to be by your choice of words the expert here, I will let you know I respect your views and insight. They are well thought out.



But, I doubt there are many on here that knows personally the men and women in all the forums.



It is one thing to study, read, listen to the gossip, read the official websites, and it is quite another to know and grow up with these people.



Thank you.
 
Last edited:
By the way, I've never understood people's anger when they had to contribute for Windsor Castle restauration. It is not only the Queen's home, but also a national (and, I would say, world) heritage (and it's a state property, not the Queen's).

I think people's anger was probably due to feelings that some of the royals were freeloaders and that they were tired of paying to keep people like Fergie in royal style while she went on ten holidays a year and consorted indiscreetly with rich Texans. Then there were all the feelings of anger against the royal establishment and blaming it for the breakdown of the Wales marriage and for making Diana unhappy (in those days she was seen as the innocent victim of the heartless monarchy somewhat more than nowadays), along with the feeling that in times when the country wasn't doing all that well and people weren't prospering, it wasn't right for the Queen to be paying no taxes and then expecting major contributions of taxpayer money to rebuild Windsor. Also, Buckingham Palace wasn't open to the public back then, so all the talk about how the royal residences really belong to the nation did start to ring rather false in the ears of the majority of the nation, who were never likely to set foot inside them. Someone (I forget if it was a member of the public in an interview or a journalist in an article) said something like, "when these buidling are still standing, they're hers; when they burn down, all of a sudden they're ours." I think that summed up public feeling quite well.
 
If people have personal problems with each other, please deal with them privately by e-mail or private message, not on the threads. Now please cool down and let's get this thread back on topic.

Thank you

Elspeth

Royal Forums administrator
 
Elspeth said:
I think people's anger was probably due to feelings that some of the royals were freeloaders and that they were tired of paying to keep people like Fergie in royal style while she went on ten holidays a year and consorted indiscreetly with rich Texans. Then there were all the feelings of anger against the royal establishment and blaming it for the breakdown of the Wales marriage and for making Diana unhappy (in those days she was seen as the innocent victim of the heartless monarchy somewhat more than nowadays), along with the feeling that in times when the country wasn't doing all that well and people weren't prospering, it wasn't right for the Queen to be paying no taxes and then expecting major contributions of taxpayer money to rebuild Windsor. Also, Buckingham Palace wasn't open to the public back then, so all the talk about how the royal residences really belong to the nation did start to ring rather false in the ears of the majority of the nation, who were never likely to set foot inside them. Someone (I forget if it was a member of the public in an interview or a journalist in an article) said something like, "when these buidling are still standing, they're hers; when they burn down, all of a sudden they're ours." I think that summed up public feeling quite well.

I wonder if the castle is insured now (provided that they found an insurance company who accepted to insure it).
 
Elspeth said:
I think people's anger was probably due to feelings that some of the royals were freeloaders and that they were tired of paying to keep people like Fergie in royal style while she went on ten holidays a year and consorted indiscreetly with rich Texans. Then there were all the feelings of anger against the royal establishment and blaming it for the breakdown of the Wales marriage and for making Diana unhappy (in those days she was seen as the innocent victim of the heartless monarchy somewhat more than nowadays), along with the feeling that in times when the country wasn't doing all that well and people weren't prospering, it wasn't right for the Queen to be paying no taxes and then expecting major contributions of taxpayer money to rebuild Windsor. Also, Buckingham Palace wasn't open to the public back then, so all the talk about how the royal residences really belong to the nation did start to ring rather false in the ears of the majority of the nation, who were never likely to set foot inside them. Someone (I forget if it was a member of the public in an interview or a journalist in an article) said something like, "when these buidling are still standing, they're hers; when they burn down, all of a sudden they're ours." I think that summed up public feeling quite well.

I agree. I too think it was the timing of the whole thing, too. So much had already happened with respect to the breakdown of Queen's childrens' marriages ('Fergie Gate', etc,), that I think the notion of paying for the renovations was the final 'straw'. In other words, IMO, people were already disenchanted, and this just further exacerbated that sentiment.
 
Last edited:
according to wikipedia, the sovereign, his/her children, and grandchildren from the male line are considered royal. his/her other family members are members of the extended royal family.

and royals who carry public duties receive Parliamentary Annuity(don't know if it's the same with civil list income).
The Queen agreed to pay taxes on income and capital gains from 1993, at the same time it was announced that only the Queen, Prince Philip, and the Queen Mother would receive civil list payments in the future.However, civil list payments to the other royals were not abolished. Instead payments to them continued and the Queen pays an equivalent sum back to the Treasury. This was thought to be a technical arrangement to cover administrative and legal difficulties of stopping the payments. But the Queen saves about £536,000 a year in income tax by setting off the money she pays back to the Treasury against her own tax bill
something i don't understand is, how the Queen pays back the civil list payments for other royals, how does she get all the money?
 
I assume she pays it out of savings from her Civil List income or out of her personal finances. I'm not sure if the source of that money is made public.
 
Apparently, national treasures in the UK cannot be insured, because none of them are -- not even now.

The Queen gets the money to fund the other royals from her income from the Duchy of Lancaster, and her stock portfolio. Because a decision was made to not increase the amount the Queen gets from the Civil List for another 10 years (until 2010 or 2011, IIRC), the surplus built up because of Major's miscalculation of the rate of inflation will be used to cover future shortfalls in official spending.
 
Annus Horribilis

ElisaR said:
By the way, I've never understood people's anger when they had to contribute for Windsor Castle restoration. It is not only the Queen's home, but also a national (and, I would say, world) heritage (and it's a state property, not the Queen's).
For Queen Elizabeth the year 1992 was one of the darkest periods of her long reign.

In March the separation of the Duke and Duchess of York was announced. Later in the year the infamous "toe-sucking" photos were published.
In April The Princess Royal and Capt Mark Phillips were divorced.
In November the Queen watched as part of her favourite home, Windsor Castle, was engulfed in fire. Photos from that day show her distraught, one of the few displays of raw emotion we have seen from her.

Public and media patience with the Royal Family had worn a bit thin by this stage; as a result there was reaction against the assumption that the taxpayer would foot the repair bill.

To complete this dreadful year, in December the separation of the Prince and Princess of Wales was announced.

In late November the Queen gave a speech at the Guildhall in which she said "1992 is not a year I shall look back on with undiluted pleasure. In the words of one of my more sympathetic correspondents, it has turned out to be an annus horribilis." She had a heavy cold at the time, and her muffled voice gave her comments more poignancy.

But, on a positive note, the Queen would have been greatly reassured by the outpouring of respect and admiration from the British people (and many others) shown during the Golden Jubilee in 2002.
.
 
Warren said:
For Queen Elizabeth the year 1992 was one of the darkest periods of her long reign.

In March the separation of the Duke and Duchess of York was announced. Later in the year the infamous "toe-sucking" photos were published.
In April The Princess Royal and Capt Mark Phillips were divorced.
In November the Queen watched as part of her favourite home, Windsor Castle, was engulfed in fire. Photos from that day show her distraught, one of the few displays of raw emotion we have seen from her.

Public and media patience with the Royal Family had worn a bit thin by this stage; as a result there was reaction against the assumption that the taxpayer would foot the repair bill.

To complete this dreadful year, in December the separation of the Prince and Princess of Wales was announced.

In late November the Queen gave a speech at the Guildhall in which she said "1992 is not a year I shall look back on with undiluted pleasure. In the words of one of my more sympathetic correspondents, it has turned out to be an annus horribilis." She had a heavy cold at the time, and her muffled voice gave her comments more poignancy.

But, on a positive note, the Queen would have been greatly reassured by the outpouring of respect and admiration from the British people (and many others) shown during the Golden Jubilee in 2002.
.


I know that the fire came after a series of royal scandals. However, the fire wasn't their fault. For this reason I think that people could have been a little more sympathetic.





kelly9480 said:
Apparently, national treasures in the UK cannot be insured, because none of them are -- not even now.

Well, this is a serious problem.
 
semisquare said:
does anyone think that the cost of having a royal family out ways the money they can bring in? case in point is the brit's royal family-i've read it somewhere they bring in a lot of money because people are willing to travel to see different royal events.

Correct. In a recent article published, the amount anually allocated to the Royal Family, is 61 pence per tax-paying member of the population. Therefore, anyone's claims that the Royal family drains their money, and should be removed, should also therefore remove anying about the 61 pence they value so highly!

The United Kingdom has such great appeal, as it has the mose famous Royal family with the most famous ceremonies in existance.
 
The wealthiest RFs would be the Middle Eastern ones, and Brunei, because the oil reserves of their lands are considered to be their private property, not property of the state. Liechtenstein and Monaco have several billion dollars, as well. None of the other Euro royal houses has over a billion dollars, but the wealthiest of the rest would be the Windsors and the Oranges.
 
I've heard that Prince Albert von Thurnd und Taxis is one of the youngest (if not THE youngest) billionaires in the world.
 
Queen Beatrix is well off. She has made it on to the Forbes Rich List several times in the last few years.
 
branchg said:
The only European royal houses that have true wealth are the Windsors, the Grimaldis, and the Grand Dukes of Leichenstein and Luxemborg. The rest of the European royal houses are not well-off at all, with the possible exception of one or two German families who were lucky enough to invest well in post-war West Germany.
The Windsors wealth has been estimated at around $700 million, most of which is tied up in Sandringham, Balmoral, jewels and a stamp collection.

The Grimaldis and the Prince of Liechtenstein are filthy rich. The Luxembourgers have never been included on international rich lists, so it's hard to see where most people are assuming this money comes from (just because the nation has a lot of banks doesn't mean the family has a lot of money).

linda85 said:
Queen Beatrix is well off. She has made it on to the Forbes Rich List several times in the last few years.
Beatrix was removed from the rich list once her dad actually faxed information about the family's holdings to Forbes. She's nowhere near as rich as had been thought. She apparently got either $250 million or 250 million euros (I can't remember which).

The rest of the reigning royals aren't hurting financially. The Borbons apparently have some $25-30 million. The Belgians admit to $11million, but that apparently doesn't include their private property, art and jewels. The Swedes admitted to $20 million before the stock market tanked. The Danes stated $15 million was too high. The Norwegians, who some people think are great London landowners since the early 1900s even though the great London estates have been in the same families' hands for several hundred years, won't comment.

None of these families, however rich or not-so-rich they might be, are financially dependent on handouts from former subjects. Only the Greeks are in this situation. They are poorer than all the reigning royal houses, and more than a few former reigning families, especially in Germany, have more money than they do.
 
linda85 said:
Queen Beatrix is well off. She has made it on to the Forbes Rich List several times in the last few years.

Her husband, Prince Bernhard, faxed information in 1998 to The Times of London and Forbes Magazine showing she was worth about $80 million, at most. Her allegedly huge stock holdings of Royal Dutch Shell ($3 billion) were shown to be the property of the State, not part of her personal fortune.
 
Elizabeth II is worth about $250 million in investments, and another $300 million in real property, art and jewels that belong to the Sovereign, rather than the Crown. The Grimaldis are far wealthier than she is ($1.5 billion).
 
The Danes are only worth about $8 million, with the rest of their income coming from the State.
 
EIIR's stock portfolio is estimated to be 100 million pounds (some say it's even less than that because of the stock market tank -- she had a lot of blue chip British stocks and they took a real hit when the economy faltered), and is estimated to produce between 8 and 10 million pounds income a year (a portion of which is shelled out on Balmoral and refunds to the Treasury, estimated to cost around 3 million pounds a year), nowhere near $250 million -- the exchange rate isn't that favourable.

A lot of the income her stocks have produced have gone into trusts for her children and grandchildren, so, while she could have built up that kind of money, the fact that she's used to income for their trusts means her personal portfolio is worth a lot less than it would be otherwise. Charles' own portfolio, which included stocks inherited from George VI, was only worth around 17 million pounds at the time of his divorce and recently released papers indicated she inherited a mere 30 million pounds (in modern terms) from her father when he died.

Stating that her private belongings are the Sovereign's legally implies they belong to the Crown (the Sovereign is the physical embodiment of the Crown). Usually it's said that they belong to her as a person (as Elizabeth Windsor) rather than to her as a Sovereign. That keeps the confusion over what belongs to her and what belongs to the Crown at a minimum (though republicans twist it anyways).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom