Royal Wealth and Finances 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why compare them at all?


We don't compare the different democracies or republics so why compare the monarchies?


I don't understand it.


I have never seen a need to compare them. I accept that they are different.


As for the figures quoted the Royal Collection Trust is NOT The Queen but an independent agency and it claims that it is paying ABOVE comparable wages for the staff at Windsor for instance - that is the 14,400 figure.


The monarchies all have different arrangements with their governments so they will pay differently. They include different extras, such as subsidised accommodation in places like central London - where most non-skilled workers would struggle to afford to live and yet the staff at BP do just that - live in central London.


I personally don't see any need or have any interest in comparing monarchies.


On the other hand whenever I do read posts that are comparing it is always done as an attack on the BRF as if the European royals are somehow better than the Brits.


The simple fact is that each government in each country has different requirements regarding what is paid to people and how it funds its monarchy.


As for the royal family in Britain and what it pays its staff - as they are free to leave if they think it is too low then there must be other compensations besides sheer money.
 
If I'm not mistaken, Andrew pays out of his own private funds the rent at St. James Palace along with footing the bill for their security. No part of Beatrice's or Eugenie's lifestyle is provided by taxpayer's monies whatsoever.

There is no reason for the girls to drop their titles. It is theirs by the circumstances of their birth as princesses of the blood royal.

At least they got their titles as members of an actual reigning monarchy. What I think is silly is for someone to still be called by the royal title of a monarchy in a country that abolished it. Example would be the members of the Greek royal family or Prince Ernst of Hanover. No ruling monarchy means no more royal title, IMHO.
 
Why compare them at all?


We don't compare the different democracies or republics so why compare the monarchies?


I don't understand it.


I have never seen a need to compare them. I accept that they are different.

It appears to me that the scale of the British monarchy in terms of annual engagements and staff size is considerably bigger than its continental counterparts, which makes any comparison unfair IMHO.
 
I was shocked to learn how little the Queen's staff is paid. In most -if not all- Continental monarchies the staff is indexed with the general annual pay-rise for civil servants. The head of the salary administration of the Swedish Royal House Service will earn the same as the head of the salary administration at one of the ministerial departments in Stockholm. The chauffeurs of the King of the Netherlands will earn the same as the chauffeurs driving ministers, officers, diplomats, etc. in The Hague. The greenkeepers maintaining the gardens, parks and forests of the Grand-Duke of Luxembourg will earn the same as their colleagues working in the public services of the Grand-Duchy. It surprises me that the salaries paid at the British palaces are so out of line with general salaries paid elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

I agree that many in the royal household earns too little, but many of them live in Buckingham Palace / Windsor Castle and has other benefits.

And you can not compare the British monarchy with the small monarchies in the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark and Norway.

The Queen earns more, but she has many more employees that need to be paid. She must also cover the official / private expenditure on all members of the royal family except Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry. In addition, she is also responsible for keeping Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, St James's Palace, Clarence House and the private part of Kensington Palace maintained.
 
I agree that many in the royal household earns too little, but many of them live in Buckingham Palace / Windsor Castle and has other benefits.

And you can not compare the British monarchy with the small monarchies in the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark and Norway.

The Queen earns more, but she has many more employees that need to be paid. She must also cover the official / private expenditure on all members of the royal family except Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry. In addition, she is also responsible for keeping Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, St James's Palace, Clarence House and the private part of Kensington Palace maintained.

The Queen does not earn anything. No member of the BRF is paid a salary.

All funding HMQ receives from Government is staffing costs, travel and upkeep of (Government owned) royal palaces.

Funding DoE receives is to fund his office

HMQ pays for the work other royals do from her own private income.


I agree with Iluvbertie - comparisons are invidious because you are not comparing like with like.

Also would add that the figure of £14,400 is the salary to the individual; on-costs (pension and National Insurance contributions etc)add 20-25% onto that figure which would be the employer costs. Non contributory pension is a massive benefit - I had to pay 6% of my salary.
 
The Queen does not earn anything. No member of the BRF is paid a salary.

All funding HMQ receives from Government is staffing costs, travel and upkeep of (Government owned) royal palaces.

Funding DoE receives is to fund his office

HMQ pays for the work other royals do from her own private income.


I agree with Iluvbertie - comparisons are invidious because you are not comparing like with like.

Also would add that the figure of £14,400 is the salary to the individual; on-costs (pension and National Insurance contributions etc)add 20-25% onto that figure which would be the employer costs. Non contributory pension is a massive benefit - I had to pay 6% of my salary.

I agree with you.

I was just trying to tell Dus et Pair that one can not compare the British monarchy with the others.

What I meant is that the Queen receives more money from the Sovereign Grant / Duchy of Lancaster than the other monarchs in Europe does from their states / governments, but that's because she has a bigger staff, is responsible for all upkeep of royal palaces. And in addition also cover both official / private expenses to all members of the royal family from the of Duchy of Lancaster (her private income) except Charles and Camilla, the Cambridges and Harry.
 
The last estimation in that article, that the monarchy costs 300 million, is more accurate than the usual ones which say that the Dutch monarchy, with around 50 million, is the world's most expensive monarchy. Come on... look at the numbers of the households, the numbers of royal residences, the numbers of security personnel, the numbers of the royal car fleet, the royal flight, the royal train, the extensive royal mews and then the British come second after the Dutch? No way..
 
The cost of the BRF was a point of pride for the late Queen Mother.

The Sovereign Grant, used to fund a number of official royal duties, pay staff and maintain palaces, has been set at £36.1m for 2013/14.
The figure is up from the £31m received the previous year, which included an extra £1m for the Diamond Jubilee.

Accounts for the Crown Estate, which owns property on behalf of the monarch, revealed profits of £240.2m for 2011/2012.

The final figure for the new funding was rounded up to £36.1m - very close to the estimated amount - by the Royal Trustees in December.
Royal accounts released in 2012 indicated the cost of supporting the monarchy rose marginally during 2011/12.

In 2011/12 the Queen's official expenditure totalled £32.3m - up 0.6% from £32.1m in 2010/11.

This is the definitive document regarding the SG. All questions answered

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Sovereign Grant Act - HM Treasury
 
And here comes the annual criticism.

Queen's finances are safe from cuts for two years - Telegraph

The single biggest drain on the Queen’s resources is the wage bill for her 431 Royal household staff.

Last year payroll costs were £18.2 million, which the Queen pays from her Sovereign Grant money, together with £1.3 million in “other staff costs” such as uniforms and expenses. The staff earn an average of £32,733, with the highest-paid member, Sir Alan Reid, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, receiving £190,000, plus £33,000 in pension payments.

Sir Christopher Geidt, the Queen’s private secretary, was paid £155,000 plus £23,000 in pension payments.

Other members of the Royal family are a further drain on the Queen’s resources.

As well as supporting herself and the Duke of Edinburgh, the Queen must pay the living costs of others who carry out official duties, including the Princess Royal, the Duke of York, and the Earl and Countess of Wessex.

These costs are met mainly through the Queen’s income from the Duchy of Lancaster, a portfolio of land, property and assets held in trust.

The rural estate consists of 45,000 acres of land, mainly in Lancashire, Yorkshire, Cheshire, Staffordshire and Lincolnshire. The commercial property portfolio is centred round the Savoy precinct off the Strand in central London.

Last year, the Duchy paid £12.5million to the Privy Purse, the Queen’s official finances.

The Queen has a third source of funds to pay her personal expenses, a private income from her personal investment portfolio plus the Sandringham and Balmoral estates, inherited from her father. How much she earns from these is unknown.

The Prince of Wales and his immediate family are self-funded through his Duchy of Cornwall estate.

The Queen spent £13.3 million on property maintenance in the 2013-14 financial year, with utility bills adding another £3.3 million.

But the hefty repair bill is only a fraction of what needs to be spent to clear a backlog of urgent renovations to Buckingham Palace and other buildings.

In the Eighties prudent spending enabled the Royal household to build up a considerable cash reserve that could be used for building maintenance, but under Labour, royal finances were frozen and the reserves were used up.

It led to a £50 million backlog of repairs to the royal palaces, with 40 per cent of buildings classed as “below target condition”.

Recent work on the palaces has included a £3.4 million refurbishment of Apartment 1A at Kensington Palace,
the London home of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, £900,000 for renewal of the lead roofing of the Royal Library at Windsor Castle and £800,000 for the removal of asbestos in the basement of Buckingham Palace.

Garden parties, tours and official entertaining at the palaces come to £2  million per year.

The royal expenses for 2013-14, according to this article.

Wage bill for 431 staff and other staff costs: £19.5 million.

Property maintenance: £13.3 million.

Travel: £4.2 million.

Utility bills: £3.3 million.

Garden parties, tours and official entertaining at the palaces: £2  million.

And other costs, including personal and official expenses for members of the royal family.

Charles's heir miles bill soars over £1million: Cost of 'green' Prince's globetrotting has risen by £100,000 a year... thanks to 28-seat luxury jet | Daily Mail Online

Sources within the Palace, however, were keen to downplay the Prince’s use of the Airbus.

‘A number of factors are taken into consideration when deciding which form of travel to use, including security, availability, punctuality and logistics,’ one said.

‘To allow Their Royal Highnesses to fulfil a busy programme and to meet the inevitable security requirements, using scheduled services is not always possible although always carefully considered.

‘In the case of all tours, after careful consideration, charter flights are often the only practical option.’

This was a good explanation, if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
Anti-monarchist group Republic have attracted ridicule this week after the publication of their latest cost analysis of the British Monarchy, bumping up their figure by tens of millions for the fourth year in a row, revealed in a report which the group sent out to the media this week.

Republic now say that – contrary to their previous claims, differing by hundreds of millions – their newest figure of £337m reflects what they term the “abuse of public money” by the Royal Household.

A breakdown of their calculations, however, reveals the alarming and gaping holes that plague the entire report
More: Anti-monarchist group attract ridicule for inflating Monarchy cost figures four years running
 
Look, if you want a Royal Family, you have to pay. Don't bring Presidents into this, Presidents work, they do not cut ribbons and have charities. But, there is nothing wrong, if that is what the people want.
 
In the report it mentioned some of the 'figurehead' presidents - such as the German President (who isn't Merkel by the way - she is the Chancellor or PM and as such is the same as David Cameron). The US President works because the US believe in giving a lot of power to one person whereas in most European countries they separate the Head of Government and the Head of State (not all but in many). That is a hang-over almost from replacing the monarch as Head of State with a President while the Chancellor or PM continued in his/her role. It makes sense then to compare the British monarch's costs with that of someone like the German President, Joachim Gauck. When you read the role of the German President, it is very similar to that of The Queen:


Proposing the Federal Chancellor to the Bundestag
Appointing and dismissing the Federal Chancellor and Federal Ministers
Dissolving the Bundestag under certain circumstances
Convening the lower house of the federal parliament (Bundestag) according to arcticle 39 of the constitution
Signing and promulgating laws
Appointing and dismissing federal judges, federal civil servants, and commissioned and non-commissioned officers of the Armed Forces
Exercising the power to pardon individual offenders on behalf of the Federation
Awarding honours on behalf of the Federation
Representing Germany at home and abroad


The Italian President has the following roles:



  1. In foreign affairs:
  2. Accrediting and receiving diplomatic functionaries;

  • Ratifying international treaties, upon authorization of Parliament (if required according to Article 80 of the Constitution);
  • Making official visits abroad, accompanied by a member of the government; and
  • Declaring a state of war, as decided by Parliament.


  1. In parliamentary affairs:
  2. Nominating up to five senators-for-life;

  • Calling the Chambers of Parliament into extraordinary session and dissolving them; and
  • Calling elections and fixing the date for the first meeting of the new Chambers.


  1. In legislative matters:
  2. Authorizing the presentation of proposed governmental bills to Parliament;


  • Promulgating the laws approved in Parliament; and
  • Remanding to the Chambers (with an explanation) and asking for reconsideration of a bill (permitted once per bill);

  1. Appertaining to popular sovereignty:

  1. In executive matters and as to official protocol:
  2. Naming the Prime Minister of Italy, and appointing Cabinet ministers on the advice of the PM;

  • Accepting the oath of the government;
  • Receiving the resignation of a government;
  • Promulgating laws by decree, which are proposed by the government alone. These measures, unless acted on by Parliament, expire after 60 days;
  • Naming certain high state functionaries;
  • Presiding over the Consiglio Supremo di Difesa (Supreme Defense Council), and commanding the armed forces; and
  • Decreeing the dissolution of regional councils and the removals of presidents of regions.


  1. In judicial matters:
  2. Presiding over the Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura (Superior Judicial Council);

  • Naming one-third of the Constitutional Court; and
  • Granting pardons and commutations.


When you analyse these lists there are many similar functions to those carried out by the British monarch.
 
Last edited:
We give a third of the power to the President, Congress a third and the Supreme Court a third. They all work. They all have power. They can all check the other. Charities and ribbon cutting are not in the picture. Also, great family wealth that has been passed down for generations, is not in the picture. (Don't tell me about the Bushes) And, yes, I can see that European Nations have given status to those who are window dressing. But they didn't inherit it, their sons won't inherit and this has not gone on ad infinitum without taxes for the most part. If they accept gifts from foreign potentates it belongs to the state, not their wives.
 
We give a third of the power to the President, Congress a third and the Supreme Court a third. They all work. They all have power. They can all check the other. Charities and ribbon cutting are not in the picture. Also, great family wealth that has been passed down for generations, is not in the picture. (Don't tell me about the Bushes) And, yes, I can see that European Nations have given status to those who are window dressing. But they didn't inherit it, their sons won't inherit and this has not gone on ad infinitum without taxes for the most part. If they accept gifts from foreign potentates it belongs to the state, not their wives.


While that's fine and dandy for the U.S., who are you to say what form of government other nations should use and how that government should operate?
 

Republicanism in the UK remains among the lowest in the world, with figures rarely exceeding 20% in support of a British republic, and consistent ~70% support for the continuation of the Monarchy.

Some polls have the support for the monarchy as high as 80%, others at around 70 to 75%, another poll has the support for the monarchy from 65 to 70%. As this article says, suport for a republic in the UK remains wery low, with figures rarely exceeding 20%.

The problem is that many think the royal family is costing too much, but that's because people belive everything the press writes. I have friends who don't understand why Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie and the so-called minor royals, shall be paid. That's because they don't know that they carry out royal duties, or that the Queen is the one who cover their cost from the Duchy of Lancaster.

Look, if you want a Royal Family, you have to pay. Don't bring Presidents into this, Presidents work, they do not cut ribbons and have charities. But, there is nothing wrong, if that is what the people want.

As I've said before, I don't bother to discuss this with you again, but the Queen and Prince Charles have worked most of their lives, and so have many others in the royal family.

The US President works because the US believe in giving a lot of power to one person

But it does not work at all. The US political system is as many people says, completely broken. They need a parliamentary system with a prime minister and apolitical President.

The problem with the German / Italian president is that he is elected by Parliament. If you have a President, he should be elected by the people, even though he has no political power.

I don't see France as a good example, the president has too much power. Finland is a better example, but here, too, the president has some power.

For me and the vast majority of people in the UK, the constitutional monarchy is the best form of government we can have. The same can be said about the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway.
 
Last edited:
This thread is not about which political system is better. Please stick to discussions about royal wealth and finances. Any further off-topic posts will be deleted.
 
Queen to get £2.7million boost to her finances - Telegraph

Republican groups have claimed funding of the Royal family is “running out of control”, but the increase was defended by a spokesman for the Queen, who said the money was needed to carry out a backlog of urgent repairs to royal palaces.

This republic group don't know what they are talking about, and the only reason they exist is that the media uses them whenever the royal costs / economy is mentioned.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: “We face a significant backlog in property maintenance. We have come up with a 10-year plan to address that and we need increased levels of funding to carry that out.

“The Royal Household’s budget has not gone up, so we are not spending any more money. The increase in income will be used to build up a reserve to spend on building works.”

If only the press could hear / understand what the palace says for once, instead of going straight to their friends in the Republic group, once something happens.
 
The Annual Review is a summary of the work of The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall from 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015. Included is income and expenditure.

Annual Review 2015
 
Video:
First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon and Westminster MP Alex Salmond have both denied reports that the Scottish Parliament could cut its contribution to the monarchy. The latest figures from the Royal accounts have been released today, showing the Crown Estate's capital value is at £11.5 billion, a historic high-

Home - ITNSource News
 
Palace backtracks over Scottish Queen funding warning - Telegraph
Buckingham Palace has backtracked over its claims that a new devolution deal for Scotland would cut the Queen’s funding after they were flatly rejected by an angry Nicola Sturgeon.

Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, said he had never intended to suggest that Ms Sturgeon had cast doubt on Scotland’s funding for the monarchy and he accepted her assurances this will not happen.

However, he said there remained questions to be resolved about the impact on the Sovereign Grant, the funding arrangement that replaced the Civil List in 2012, of devolving the Crown Estate to Scotland next year.

Buckingham Palace accepts Scotland WON'T cut the Queen's finances as Nicola Sturgeon denies plot | Daily Mail Online
 
Last edited:
We give a third of the power to the President, Congress a third and the Supreme Court a third. They all work. They all have power. They can all check the other. Charities and ribbon cutting are not in the picture. Also, great family wealth that has been passed down for generations, is not in the picture. (Don't tell me about the Bushes) yAnd, yes, I can see that European Nations have given status to those who are window dressing. But they didn't inherit it, their sons won't inherit and this has not gone on ad infinitum without taxes for the most part. If they accept gifts from foreign potentates it belongs to the state, not their wives.

The Head of State in a dual system (h of Gov/h of state) is not "window dressing". It is a nations preferred method of government and should be respected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ish
News that the Crown Estate returned record profits of £285m last year means the Queen is expected to receive a further £2m in public funding next year. But just how rich is the Queen and where does her wealth come from?

Despite the fact that many details of the Queen's income are released publicly, the Queen's exact wealth is not known.

That is because the Queen is not required to reveal her private finances.

According to the Sunday Times Rich List 2015, her estimated fortune is £340m, up £10m from last year.

What is known about the Queen's wealth can be broadly divided between her private income and funding given to her, as the reigning monarch, by the government.
More: How rich is the Queen? - BBC News
 
Richard Palmer ‏@RoyalReporter Jun 24
How much does it cost to run the household of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry? We don't know; royal aides won't say
 
Richard Palmer ‏@RoyalReporter Jun 24
How much does it cost to run the household of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry? We don't know; royal aides won't say

I've always heard that Prince Charles funds them out of the income from his Duchy of Cornwall; the Queen pays for the rest of the family.
 
I've always heard that Prince Charles funds them out of the income from his Duchy of Cornwall; the Queen pays for the rest of the family.


Yes, that's true.
 
Richard Palmer ‏@RoyalReporter Jun 24
How much does it cost to run the household of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry? We don't know; royal aides won't say

The running of the household of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry are paid for by Prince Charles through the duchy of cornwall. They don't receive any money from the state / sovereign grant in their own.

When traveling on behalf of the Queen or when their new apartment at kensington palace needed repairs, the cost is / was covered by the sovereign grant.

The costs of running the household of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry are included in the cost of running the household of Prince Charles and Camilla.
 
Last edited:
We know that and Richard Palmer - a royal reporter doesn't. That says a lot about the knowledge of 'royal reporters' doesn't it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom