Royal Wealth and Finances 1: Ending 2022

[branchg]

I highly doubt Princess Margaret left a 30 million pound estate. She never was loaded because George VI, as is tradition, left the majority of his fortune to Elizabeth as the new Sovereign, with a sizable amount set aside for The Queen Mother's benefit.

In addition, it's been documented quite extensively over the years that The Queen privately financed many of Margaret's expensive indulgences, so I don't think there is a big amount of cash waiting for her children.

 

[branchg]

The Queen doesn't help them financially the way she helps her children. If she did, David wouldn't be constantly complaining of how broke he is, time and again, in his interviews. He has always said that he pays his own way, though EIIR's use of his company helped raise his profile.

I doubt Viscount Linley is ready for the poverty line, no matter how much he complains about how broke he is. He also has his own business, which probably substantially strained his cash flow when sales are down.

His father doesn't come from a wealthy, landed family like the Spencers and he is a minor member of the royal family, so it's to be expected.

 

[dbarn67]

I remember reading that Viscount Linley wife Serena came from a very wealth family. Her father was as wealth business man like Kate Middleton's father.

 

[pinkylou]

i believe serena is an aristocrat like diana's family was, i've read somewhere her father was an earl or a baron, and yes i've heard that they were loaded

 

[kelly9480]

Serena's father is Viscount PEtersham, heir of the Earl of Harrington. The family owns the Stanhope estate in London and is worth 120 million pounds. Serena's brother is likely to inherit most of the estate, and she has a lot of aunts and uncles (somewhere around 7, IIRC) that will also inherit a chunk of the money, so it's hard to guess exactly how much will come her way.

 

[pinkylou]

she probably has a trust in her name, thats what alot of the aristocracy are doing at the mo, to ensure that everyone has a share. and i do believe that her father upon inheriting the earldom will also inherit most of the family fortunes and so his brothers and sisters would probably not recieve much.

 

[branchg]

Like the royal family, most of the landed peerage passes their wealth to the eldest son to preserve their legacy. Junior sons and daughters usually receive a lump sum bequest or income from a trust only.

 

[Claire]

Engagement to Pay Ratio

I love statistics and I wanted to see just how much the royals are payed per hour. This of course brings up some problems as we don't actually know how much Prince Charles and the Queen put aside for the running of their offices. So I have taken the rounded off figure of 400 000 pounds (which is slightly more than the Duke of Edinburgh's) For William and Harry's I've had to be more creative - since their are various reports about how much pocket money Daddy gives them to fly to South Africa and throw drunking parties. So I've taken the amount of 250 000 pounds which is where Prince Andrew's pay stood at their age.

So lets look at this:
The Duke of Edinburgh (and his office) spend roughtly 884.24 pounds per engagements
The Princess Royal- 396 pounds.
The Duke of York - 558.30 per engagement
The Earl of Wessex - 317.32 per engagement.
The Countess of Wessex is free - the Queen doesn't know pay her any money, all the money goes to Edward. So either she is in need of a trade union or Edward's allowance is for both of them than the Wessex's together - 251.92 pounds for one engagement.
The Duke of Kent - 1030.56 pounds
The Duke and Duchess of Glouchester - 479.45 pounds
Princess Alexander - 1800 pound
Prince Charles - 800 pounds for 500 engagements
Prince William - 19230.76 pounds for engagement
Prince Harry - 41666.66 pounds for engagement.

Of course we don't know exactly how many hours are actually spend at their functions. Its strange that what it actually comes down to measuring someones worth. So in a nut shell - Prince Harry is the most expensive royal. I don't actually know how much he gets from Charles but I resume it is more than more estimate anyway. Its sad that Andrew or Edward probably did more engagements in a month when they were younger than William and Harry did in a year. And they are lesser royals. By far the Countess of Wessex is the cheapest royal and if this was rent of royal, she is the one you'll do with. Second is Edward - so jointly they win hands down. Odd that they are still considered the lazy greed hangon through.
And I don't know exactly what to do with Camilla?

 

[yvr girl]

Does the Civil List seem unfair to you?

Why does the Earl of Wessex receive so much less than everyone else? Why do the Gloucesters receive so much less than the Kents?​

Parliamentary annuity (not repaid by The Queen)​

HRH The Duke of Edinburgh £359,000​

Parliamentary annuities (repaid by The Queen)​

HRH The Duke of York £249,000

HRH The Earl of Wessex £141,000

HRH The Princess Royal £228,000
TRH The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester £175,000
TRH The Duke and Duchess of Kent £236,000
HRH Princess Alexandra £225,000​

​

 

[Elspeth]

I think the Queen is repaying their expenses these days, so I assume the amounts of money reflect what's being spent on their official duties.

 

[princess olga]

Poor queen, having to reimburse that youngest son of hers who isn't as far as I'm aware contributing too much to society these days...correct me by the way, if my perception's wrong on this one.

By the way, where's the names of the Prince Michaels of Kent? They regularly show up to support the queen, isn't that right?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Poor queen, having to reimburse that youngest son of hers who isn't as far as I'm aware contributing too much to society these days...correct me by the way, if my perception's wrong on this one.

By the way, where's the names of the Prince Michaels of Kent? They regularly show up to support the queen, isn't that right?

Actually the Wessex's do quite a lot to support the Queen, and The Duke of Edinburgh. Edward spends a lot of his time on the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme but also does quite a few engagements in his own right and with his lovely wife, The Countess.

Prince Micheal does less than Edward and actually earns a private income to support himself from what I remember when I research this last year.

 

[Elspeth]

Prince Michael doesn't represent the Queen officially, as far as I know. He and the Princess undertake various charitable works as royals, but they don't do official royal duties.

 

[jcbcode99]

I just read the other day that Prince Michael of Kent does not receive money from the Queen and instead funds everything himself. I have to confess, this really changed my opinion of him. Before, I thought he was a little too consumed about looking like Tsar Nicholas II, and I just wanted him to shave that beard off--but, once I read this, well, I was very shamed by how I had felt. He is obviously sincere in his desire to give something back and do some meaningful work. He also speaks several languages fluently. And, Princess Michael is a noted lecturer! Who would have known? My opinion about the Kents has truly changed.

 

[Claire]

The first thing that people need to get away from is that the civil list or the paying back of the civil list is the salary of the royal - it is actually the payment for the running of the office of that royal. It mostly goes towards the salary of the staff.
Now I would like it to be that the staff of the royal is inproportion with the amount of work the royal does, but it isn't for several reasons. The Queen, Duke of Edinburgh and Prince of Wales have the largest staff and the most experienced and therefore most expensive staff. The same can now be said about Camilla, William and Harry. Good PR gurus, media consulatants and lawyers cost money.
But why Camilla has a staff of over fifty people is beyond me. The problem with Andrew's staff is that is inflated, he is still running around with staff for Sarah, why are they there I have no idea. The staff should match the need of the royal. He unfortunately falls ino the same category of the Kent, Glouchesters and Princess Alexander, their staff has been with him forever and thus have nice little bloated salaries. The Princess Royal steamlined her office so that she would have less to pay.
Prince Edward's office is a more recent one. It consisted of three people until 2001 and now it has increased to 4 since him and Sophie stopped working. It thus incurs the less expense as there are very little people and they have relatively little experience. Sophie doesn't techinically have a office as she uses Edward's staff - I understand that they recently changed. So she doesn't get paid by the civil list.
But really shouldn't the staff of the royal and the money they receive be a direct reflection to the role that royal holds and amount of engagements they do?

 

[Henri M.]

I was wondering if any of the british royals had to sign prenups? like Prince Phillip, Diana, Fergi?

I would be surprised if they did not. Already in early mediaeval times long and difficult negotiations were necessary for any royal marriage. In 2001/2002 there was an exhibition in Amsterdam called 'Ja, ik wil!' ('Yes, I do!'). Besides countless of wedding gifts, bridal gowns, carriages, jewels, it also showed some of the prenuptial acts.

In there the whole history of marriages in the Orange-Nassau family, also with British Princesses like Mary I Stuart The Princess Royal, Mary II Stuart Princess of York and Anne of Hannover The Princess Royal were documented. Their prenuptial argeements are artworks on perchment, bound in vellum and with expensive golden and silver covers. See a picture here. It are exhausting prenuptials, varying from the annual apanage to new Princess or the amount of gunshots Dutch naval ships had to fire to honour the new Princess, varying from the number of British ladies-in-waiting to the right to worship the anglican Faith.

It would surprise me very, very much that there were no negotiations with the Earl Spencer, Prince Andreas of Greece and Denmark or the Earl of Strathmore & Kinghorne, to name a few in-law families.

From knowledge about marriages in my own royal family: all of their weddings are on specific conditions vested in prenuptial acts. It is known that lawyer's teams from both the Orange-Nassaus and the Zorreguieta's have had negotiations. It would surprise me if the mighty and rich British royal family would not do so.

 

[Iluvbertie]

IIt would surprise me very, very much that there were no negotiations with the Earl Spencer, Prince Andreas of Greece and Denmark or the Earl of Strathmore & Kinghorne, to name a few in-law families.

Prince Andreas of Greece and Denmark wouldn't have been involved in any negotiations (assuming any took place) - unless you are suggesting that they started this negotiation before his death in 1944.

It is my understanding, from something people either on this forum, or one of the other forums where I post, that pre-nups aren't binding in the UK e.g. http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/royals-finances-9826.html

From the negotiations that took place after both the Wales and York's marriages ended I would suggest that there was no pre-nup as these negotiations would have taken place before the engagement being announced.

 

[Henri M.]

From the negotiations that took place after both the Wales and York's marriages ended I would suggest that there was no pre-nup as these negotiations would have taken place before the engagement being announced.

If this is true, I find it shockingly irresponsible, almost naive, that the marriages with Lady Diana Spencer or Sarah Ferguson went without prenuptials. The most basal things like the custody over eventual children, the apanage to the divorced spouse (or widow), the involvement in the upbringing of eventual children, etc. should have been negotiated by professionals, aside from the couple seeing everything through pink glasses on cloud nine.

 

[milla Ca]

But why Camilla has a staff of over fifty people is beyond me.

The Duchess with a staff of fifty people...or more....?
Are you joking, or do you want to give serious information? Maybe you should ask you source again...please!

 

[Iluvbertie]

If this is true, I find it shockingly irresponsible, almost naive, that the marriages with Lady Diana Spencer or Sarah Ferguson went without prenuptials. The most basal things like the custody over eventual children, the apanage to the divorced spouse (or widow), the involvement in the upbringing of eventual children, etc. should have been negotiated by professionals, aside from the couple seeing everything through pink glasses on cloud nine.

The divorce settlements were negotiated by professionals. Only it happened AFTER the marriage failed rather than before. All of the matters you raised were negotiated - the timing is different that it all.

As far as I am aware there is no pre-nup between Charles and Camilla either. That is the British RF's way of doing things.

 

[Henri M.]

Would not surprise me. She is the Lady of the House. And she can rely on a vast cashflow from the Duchy of Cornwall.
- secretaries
- beauticians
- coiffeuses
- dressers
- maids
- butlers
- cooks
- gardeners
- chauffeurs
- security
- stablemasters
- florists
- garagists
- technicians
Etc.

 

[Henri M.]

The divorce settlements were negotiated by professionals. Only it happened AFTER the marriage failed rather than before. All of the matters you raised were negotiated - the timing is different that it all. As far as I am aware there is no pre-nup between Charles and Camilla either. That is the British RF's way of doing things.

I don't know how this is settled in British law. But when you marry on the Continent, without pre-nuptials, husband and wive do equally share their possessions. That is why prenuptial contracts are absolutely necessary. Princess Margaret, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew and Prince Charles all divorced. I'm almost sure there are precautional agreements. I refuse to believe there are none.

 

[seto]

I have also read that in england prenuptials are not done. It is only recently that people have started getting them.

 

[Henri M.]

I have also read that in england prenuptials are not done. It is only recently that people have started getting them.

Hm, not entirely true. There is a long tradition of prenuptials in royal families.

The private Royal House Archives in The Hague stores wonderful historic collections.
Amongst the thousands of family documents also the wonderful prenuptial argeements of three British Princesses:
- 1641: Mary Henrietta Stuart, The Princess Royal x Willem II of Nassau, The Prince of Orange
- 1677: Mary Stuart, Princess of York x Willem III of Nassau, The Prince of Orange
- 1734: Anne of Hannover, The Princess Royal x Willem IV, The Prince of Orange, Fürst of Nassau

Their existence (completely with wonderful drawings and prints describing the wedding ceremonies and festivities in detail) proves that also in the British royal family there was a tradition of prenuptial agreements.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This link indicates that the move is shifting - as recently, in 2002 a judge did take the pre-nup into account, but it also makes the point that pre-nuptials aren't enforceable by the courts.

Prenuptial agreements around the world


With the situation being that pre-nups aren't recognised by law (certainly at the time of the marriages of Diana, Fergie, Margaret and Philip) then why go through the hassle of setting them up.


Even if they had had one the courts would simply ignore them at the time, and still mostly ignore them in Britain - so what's the point.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Hm, not entirely true. There is a long tradition of prenuptials in royal families.

The Royal House Archives in The Hague stores wonderful historic collections.
Amongst these the wonderful prenuptial argeements of three British Princesses:
- 1641: Mary Henrietta Stuart, The Princess Royal x Willem II of Nassau, The Prince of Orange
- 1677: Mary Stuart, Princess of York x Willem III of Nassau, The Prince of Orange
- 1734: Anne of Hannover, The Princess Royal x Willem IV, The Prince of Orange, Fürst of Nassau

Their existence (completely with wonderful drawings and prints describing the wedding ceremonies and festivities in detail) proves that also in the British royal family there was a tradition of prenuptial agreements.

Could you please provide links to these agreements.

The links you have provided are to photos.

I would like to read these agreements so that I can see if what you are saying is right - if they were truly pre-nups (documents that spell out the division of property etc in the case of the failure of a marriage) or more what I suspect they are - marriage settlements - (documents that set out what the wife is bringing to the marriage and what will therefore remain her property and not the property of the husband although he can use the income from said property).


Whose signatures appear on these documents would also be interesting as often the wife didn't sign these documents at all - only the father and the husband (or often only his father or their representatives) as these marriages were often arranged marriages with the young people having little or no say in who they married.


I am not saying you are wrong but I would like to read for myself what the document say so I can see if we are talking about the same thing or two different things.

 

[Henri M.]

Could you please provide links to these agreements.

I would like to read these agreements so that I can see if what you are saying is right -

The Royal House Archives are a private family archive and you need to make a request to its Director to see the pre-nuptial agreements (for an example for a scientific dissertation). You then can visit the lavish building in The hague and, under guardian of a clerk, you will be handed over the documents.

Because it is a family archive, it does not fall under the Accessibility of Public Information Act. But from an exhibition in Amsterdam there is a picture of the prenuptial agreements of Anna Paulovna Romanovna, Grand Princess of Russia for her marriage to Willem Frederik George Lodewijk, The Prince of Orange in 1816.

Interesting British fact: Prince Willem was officially engaged to Princess Charlotte Augusta of Great Britain and Hannover, daughter of the future King George IV, from Dcember 1813 to May 1814. The prenuptial agreements (!) between the Hannovers and the Orange-Nassaus caused a sort of cold war between the two royal families. The engagement was ended. Princess Charlotte Augusta would marry Prince Leopold of Saxen-Coburg (later King of the Belgians) and Prince Willem forgot his British fiancée in the arms of the much richer and more prestigious daughter of Tsar Paul I and sister to Tsar Alexander I and Nicolas I.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Royal House Archives are a private family archive and you need to make a request to its Director to see the pre-nuptial agreements (for an example for a scientific dissertation). You then can visit the lavish building in The hague and, under guardian of a clerk, you will be handed over the documents.

Because it is a family archive, it does not fall under the Accessibility of Public Information Act. But from an exhibition in Amsterdam there is a picture of the prenuptial agreements of Anna Paulovna Romanovna, Grand Princess of Russia for her marriage to Willem Frederik George Lodewijk, The Prince of Orange in 1816.

Interesting British fact: Prince Willem was officially engaged to Princess Charlotte Augusta of Great Britain and Hannover, daughter of the future King George IV, from Dcember 1813 to May 1814. The prenuptial agreements (!) between the Hannovers and the Orange-Nassaus caused a sort of cold war between the two royal families. The engagement was ended. Princess Charlotte Augusta would marry Prince Leopold of Saxen-Coburg (later King of the Belgians) and Prince Willem forgot his British fiancée in the arms of the much richer and more prestigious daughter of Tsar Paul I and sister to Tsar Alexander I and Nicolas I.

Thank you for that.


I am sorry that I can't check whether the documents you refer to are actually prenups setting out the rights and claims of both parties in the case of a marriage breakdown or, what I suspect they are - marriage settlements setting out what the wife brings to the marriage and therefore what is hers and what will remain hers regardless of what the future holds - namely in the case of divorce (highly unlikely in those days) and more likely the case of being widowed.

A quick google search finds many such marriage settlements among the upper classes stating what the wife is bringing from her father to the marriage and that this property is to remain hers, but the income can be used by the husband for their mutual benefit but he can't dispose of this property as it is hers. That was the point of these settlements as the wife's property automatically became the property of her husband, except for what was specified in the marriage settlement.

 

[Henri M.]

That was the point of these settlements as the wife's property automatically became the property of her

Well, that still is the core base of any pre-nuptial settlement, isn't it? The separation of the two personal possessions and the returning of at least the value of what was 'brought into the marriage' by the bridal party.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Every definition I have seen of a pre-nup refers to the statement of what is brought to the marriage by BOTH parties and what is to happen to ALL property at the end of the marriage including the assests of the husband from before the marriage as well as those acrued during the marriage.

A marriage settlement only dealt with the property that the wife brought to the marriage and nothing about division of property at the end of the marriage or what the husband brought to the marriage and certainly nothing about the assets acrued during the marriage.

A marriage settlement deals with one-third to one-quarter of what a pre-nup deals with. Marriage settlements have been around since the ancient world and in all classes of people - it may have been a cow or a spinning wheel as the wife's possession but it was still hers.

Pre-nups, as such, are a late 20th century thing due to the rising divorce rate and cover property brought by both sides to the wedding, division of property in the case of divorce, custody of children etc.