The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #241  
Old 07-22-2008, 02:18 PM
Claire's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 841
It just saddens me that while others are budgeting and scapping to get by others are constantly on holiday, and throwing drinking parties for friends.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 08-21-2008, 05:03 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: london, United Kingdom
Posts: 277
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...st-royals.html

I always end up wondering how true articles like this actually are, i guess we will never know, which is how it should be.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 08-21-2008, 06:42 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
I don't think, because she IS HM, that EVERYTHING is recorded. But then again, how many of the gazillionaires on that list have EVERYTHING recorded? I'm sure they have assets spread out all over the place. . .
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 08-22-2008, 09:25 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,352
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...st-royals.html

Excerpts from tommy1716's link (keeping in mind the figure is a guesstimate):

With an estimated fortune of £349 million, the monarch has even slipped one position to 12th place in the chart compiled by the US magazine Forbes.

The true value of the Queen's private property, which includes Balmoral, Sandringham, a smaller collection of jewellery and some paintings has never been disclosed. She also derives a personal income of around £12.5million a year from the Duchy of Lancaster.

But a spokeswoman for Buckingham Palace insisted last night: "The Queen's personal wealth has always been vastly exaggerated."
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 08-23-2008, 04:05 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
The Crown Estate belongs to The Sovereign in right of the Crown. At the beginning of each new reign, The Sovereign formally surrenders all revenues from the Estate in return for a Civil List from Parliament to reimburse certain expenses. It is inseparable from the State, with Parliament as custodian and beneficiary on behalf of the taxpayers.

Even if the monarchy was abolished and Britain became a republic, the Crown Estate would remain with the State. The arrangement was made to release the Crown from being personally responsible for the expenses of the State, which today would far exceed the revenues produced by the Crown assets. In a way, it is the contribution of The Sovereign to the cost of maintaining a Government, national defense, healthcare, etc.

The Queen's personal investments are estimated at $100-150 million, not including her jewels, her artwork, Balmoral and Sandringham. Given the considerable expenses she pays for the entire royal family (approximately $8 million annually), it's not that much money when you consider it has to last for generations. The Duchy of Lancaster generates about $10 million, which after taxes is another $6 million in her pocket. This too is mostly gone for staff expenses, pensions, upkeep, etc.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 08-23-2008, 08:24 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,466
We will take up a collection for her. Perhaps, some of her pensioners who live on meager amounts will feel the pangs of empathy. Please. They are wealthy beyond measure. They never have to worry about where there next buck (pound) is coming from. There are many who labor much harder for far less.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 08-24-2008, 12:09 AM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
We will take up a collection for her. Perhaps, some of her pensioners who live on meager amounts will feel the pangs of empathy. Please. They are wealthy beyond measure. They never have to worry about where there next buck (pound) is coming from. There are many who labor much harder for far less.
I think branch was just being matter of fact on the state of HM's finances. She's had a life of service and what's been expected of her has been planned since her birth. She's been constantly in the public eye with her every move photographed for posterities sake. I don't know if I could make that sort of sacrifice no matter the wealth.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 09-05-2008, 12:11 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
The Queen's official London residence was estimated to be worth £935 million by home valuation site Zoopla.co.uk, making it the UK's most expensive family property.
But the price tag is hardly surprising when you consider that the palace has 775 rooms, including 19 State rooms, 52 Royal and guest bedrooms, 188 staff bedrooms, 92 offices and 78 bathrooms.

Buckingham Palace valued at close to £1 billion - Telegraph
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 10-16-2008, 03:55 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
That she receives from the state.
Sky - I am not sure I agree with your comment. From memory, Andrew's funding is what is a referreed to as a re-imbursement of civil list payments by the Queen. The payments are made by the Queen from her private income, which I am guessing is from the Duchy of Lancaster or other private sources. IMO, this is the same pot of money that is, for example, used to subsidiise the rent on the flat at KP for the Kents. Again from memory, the only recipients of civil list payments are the Queen and the DoE.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 10-16-2008, 04:45 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
Sky - I am not sure I agree with your comment. From memory, Andrew's funding is what is a referreed to as a re-imbursement of civil list payments by the Queen.The payments are made by the Queen from her private income, which I am guessing is from the Duchy of Lancaster or other private sources. IMO, this is the same pot of money that is, for example, used to subsidiise the rent on the flat at KP for the Kents. Again from memory, the only recipients of civil list payments are the Queen and the DoE.
It is the money HM receives from the civil list, that she can use to give Andrew his pocket money or pay for her relatives accommodation, not private income. She may give him even more from her private income.
Quote:
The Queen has repaid to the Treasury the annual parliamentary allowances received by other members of the Royal Family
- from the amount she receives from the Civil List, otherwise why would she have received extra for Edwards wedding?
Quote:
Apart from an increase of £45,000 on the occasion of The Earl of Wessex's marriage, these amounts remain as follows
From what I can see, whether it is the Privy Purse or the Civil List, the money ultimately comes from the state.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 10-16-2008, 07:39 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,770
You may be better versed with the specifics, but in concept, as far as I understand it, is that the only two receiving Civil List payments (on a net basis) are the Queen and the DoE. Any payments received by others are re-imbursed. The Queens principal sources of income are the Civil List, the Duchy of Lancaster and her private wealth outside of all of this. My thinking was that the Civil List payments (whch as we all know have been frozen for quite along time) broadly just about cover the costs of the business of monarchy. There is an obvious circularity (therefore making it pointless IMO) in your suggestion that the Queen uses her civil list payments to repay the Treasury the payments received by other members of the royal family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 10-16-2008, 08:47 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
They are indeed the only two in receipt of money from the civil list.

One way or another the state pays HM, who pays her children, otherwise there would be no mention of the amounts HM pays them in the official accounts. As you know HM's private wealth and accounts are not disclosed in said accounts.


So, IMO, if the payments are shown in the RF financial statement, they are ultimately derived from the state, no matter who arranges the transfer.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 10-24-2008, 04:02 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
At the risk of not having the specifics to hand:----snipped----the state is subsisiding the existence of her children is a bit disingenous, and IMO, quite misleading.
I am surprised that you would suggest it is disingenuous, there is nothing insincere or calculating about it. I am not giving a false appearance of frankness and I have provided the link again, which is freely available for all to see. The official financial statements clearly include payments to HM's children, therefore the money they receive comes via HM, from the state. They may be annuities repaid by HM, but as HM's money comes from the state, ultimately it comes from us, not from HM's private, private income, if it was entirely a private matter, from private funds, the details would not be in the official statement presented to parliament...
The Monarchy Today > Royal finances > Financial arrangements of other members of the Royal Family
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 10-24-2008, 05:28 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
Skydragon, maybe you could give us the link as to whether or not the state money to the queen was increased proportionately in 1993 when she started to pay the money back.

If her personal state funding was increased at that time in an amount equal to the funds that she now repays, there may be something to it. Otherwise, what HM does with her own income really should be her own business.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 10-24-2008, 06:31 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
Skydragon, maybe you could give us the link as to whether or not the state money to the queen was increased proportionately in 1993 when she started to pay the money back.
I have given the link to the Royal Finances site, there is also a full and detailed PDF file available for those that wish to read it. The link shown gives all the necessary information,
Quote:
In 2000 the annual amounts payable to members of the Royal Family (which are set every ten years) were reset at their 1990 levels for the next ten years, until December 2010.
IMO, this is a clear statement that members of the royal family receive payments from the state via HM.
Quote:
what HM does with her own income really should be her own business.
Indeed, which IMO, proves the amounts shown must not be private money, but money that comes from the state.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 10-25-2008, 12:12 AM
ada's Avatar
ada ada is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: pomona, Australia
Posts: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
I am surprised that you would suggest it is disingenuous, there is nothing insincere or calculating about it. I am not giving a false appearance of frankness and I have provided the link again, which is freely available for all to see. The official financial statements clearly include payments to HM's children, therefore the money they receive comes via HM, from the state. They may be annuities repaid by HM, but as HM's money comes from the state, ultimately it comes from us, not from HM's private, private income, if it was entirely a private matter, from private funds, the details would not be in the official statement presented to parliament...
The Monarchy Today > Royal finances > Financial arrangements of other members of the Royal Family
This article gave me the impression that the Queen is repaying the government for all RF allowances except HM and D of E
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 10-25-2008, 01:09 AM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
I have given the link to the Royal Finances site, there is also a full and detailed PDF file available for those that wish to read it. The link shown gives all the necessary information,IMO, this is a clear statement that members of the royal family receive payments from the state via HM.Indeed, which IMO, proves the amounts shown must not be private money, but money that comes from the state.
I have read the information at the site. It doesn't give the information for the civil list of 1993, which is when the Queen started to reimburse the payment for Andrew et al. IMO, if you want to make the argument that Andrew is completely funded by the taxpayer, it is critical to ascertain that the reimbursement started at a time when the Queen's was increased at an equal amount by the government. I don't see that anywhere. I did find this:

"The Duchy's main purpose is to provide an independent source of income for the Sovereign as Duke of Lancaster. This money is mainly used to defray official expenditure not historically met by the Civil List.


The Queen uses a large part of it to meet official expenses incurred by other members of the Royal Family. Only The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh receive payments from Parliament which are not reimbursed by The Queen."

and also:

Most of the allowances received by members of the Royal Family are spent on staff who support their public engagements and correspondence.

Which sounds to me like that is what the civil list reimbursements go towards. On another website altogether I found this which is the parliamentary discussion of the new taxation on the Queen and the Civil List reimbursement for the first time:

House of Commons Hansard Debates for 11 Feb 1993

Which quotes:

"With regard to the expenses which may be set against that income, can the Prime Minister say what they might be in general terms? Is my understanding correct that the Queen may set against liability to tax arising from the privy purse the payments which she makes to the Consolidated Fund to reimburse payments made to other members of the royal family? "

As this was determined to be accurate, I think the most that can be said is that the Queen is allowed to use the reimbursement amount against the taxes she pays on her own income. As noted in the same publication:

"The new arrangements will ensure that, so far as possible, the Queen will pay tax on her personal income according to the normal tax rules and will herself take responsibility for the Civil List payments to almost all other members of the royal family".

Amusingly enough was also this quote:

"May I ask the Prime Minister to do his best to ensure that those members of the royal family who are now dropped from the Civil List will be accorded the degree of privacy which would be enjoyed by the nephew of any newspaper editor?
Hon. Members : Hear, hear."

We see how well that worked out for them.

So forgive me, but it seems that crying "taxpayer funded" in this case is a bit excessive.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 10-25-2008, 05:35 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by ada View Post
This article gave me the impression that the Queen is repaying the government for all RF allowances except HM and D of E
I think the problem here is that I believe ALL of HM's public money ultimately comes from the state. The amount agreed in 1993 was increased to reflect that the rest of the royals no longer received direct payments from the state. They would still receive payments but HM would repay the amount out of the money she receives from the Privy Purse, hence the reimburse. It is a Smoke and Mirrors manouver.
We only see the accounts that concern money from the state, (HM's private accounts and investments are on the whole unknown and never disclosed.) therefore the monies shown cover the cleaners, the cooks and other members of the Royal Family!

The Monarchy Today > Royal finances > Sources of funding > Personal wealth

This should be in the Royal Finances and then we could continue to discuss Andrews rather large double chin.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 10-25-2008, 01:20 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
No, I understood what you were saying. The problem for me is the issue of when the Queen's income becomes her own to dispose of as she chooses. It's a bit like saying that you, as an employer, have the right to a voice on what your employee gives their children for an allowance. IMO, once you agree on what your employee's salary is, that is the end of your imput as long as your employee herself is doing a good job.

I have looked for information on the civil list that would show a proportionate increase from 1992 - 1993, which is really the time period in question and I have not found anything that would substantiate the claim that her income was increased to defray the new reimbursements. Since you apparantly have proof of this claim, perhaps you could point me in the right direction.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 10-25-2008, 01:55 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
I have looked for information on the civil list that would show a proportionate increase from 1992 - 1993, which is really the time period in question and I have not found anything that would substantiate the claim that her income was increased to defray the new reimbursements. Since you apparantly have proof of this claim, perhaps you could point me in the right direction.
As I am sure you know, before 1993, the accounts seem to have been some kind of dark secret.
Mr. Portillo [holding answer 15 May 1992] : In accordance with the Civil List (Increase of Financial Provision) Order 1990--SI 1990/2018--Her Majesty the Queen receives £7.9 million each calendar year for her civil list. House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 May 1992
------------------
As I said, it is all smoke and mirrors, HM may seem as if she is repaying the amount from her private income but......
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, civil list, finances


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
Wealth and Finances of the Spanish Royal Family hrhcp Royal Family of Spain 109 02-06-2014 06:00 AM
Costs and Finances of the Belgian Royal Family Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 64 07-27-2013 05:49 AM
Royals and Wealth, Costs and Finances kcc Royal Life and Lifestyle 384 09-28-2012 02:27 AM
Wealth of The German Royal/Princely Houses kcc Royal Families of Germany and Austria 12 12-30-2007 04:35 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman picture of the month pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:14 PM.

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]