Royal Wealth and Finances 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
DUCHY of LANCASTER

HMQ derives income from the Duchy of Lancaster but she has delegated some responsibility to the Prince of Wales.

CC 5thFebruary 2016
His Royal Highness afterwards held a Meeting at Clarence House with representatives from the Duchy of Lancaster.

This also happened last yr.



NOTE: there may be a thread already re Duchy of Lancaster, but I haven't found it. Admin, please move as required.
NOTE 2: just after I posted, I found this thread. Technologically challenged I hoped the admins would move this and lo! they did. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
It's probably no different with William meeting with the Duchy of Cornwall people. Both of the duchies are going to have long term plans and projects which will span to the next Dukes of Lancaster and Cornwall.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
cepe said:
I really don't disagree with that - but the legacy is that the media will never let go.

EDIT: there is only one outstanding issue - security. And of course, the cost.

Harry is currently deemed (according to media sources) to be a high risk - do we just leave him to his fate?
Click to expand...

Harry is high risk because of his role in the Afghanistan War - and like any others who were named in that role he is a risk and therefore entitled to protection, as an ordinary citizen - in the same way that Salman Rushdie was given 24/7 protection.

If the police deem that Harry is no longer a high risk then he should lose security accordingly.
 
Harry is also the adult backup to William. Down the line, when William's children are adults and Harry is in Andrew's role. He is not going to have police protection 24/7


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Countessmeout said:
Sorry but that is the problem the royals have thinking like this. Why do tabloids write these stories? Because they SELL. People read them and they do care. If you look at the comment sections you will find plenty of people share the opinions of the writers. If royals continue to burry their heads in the sand and refuse to aknowledge this head on this will simply build. And when you are relying on tax payers to fund your lives, disenchanting tax payers is not a great move.
Click to expand...

Once again, the tax payers do not, in any shape or form, fund the lives of the British Royal Family. The taxpayer's do pay for their security. And, if you really want to get down to the grass roots, Charles, whose income comes from the interest earned for the Duchy of Cornwall that supports his immediate family, pays taxes. The Queen also pays taxes on her income from the Duchy of Lancaster. These are the incomes that fund and reimburse the royal family for the work they do for Crown and Country. They are also, most likely, very likely independently wealthy people. Other than the yearly released information on the Duchies and the Sovereign Grant (a certain percentage of the monies earned by the Crown Estate reverts to the monarch for expenses), we don't know the size of their bank accounts and their portfolios.

William and Kate could, if they wished and it was approved by the Queen and the Firm, could take up pig farming in the highlands of Scotland for the next 3 years. It would not change the way the British monarchy works. It may be a unwise move but it wouldn't change anything other than popular opinion.

This link will explain more to you on just how the British Royal Family is funded.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/Sourcesoffunding/TheSovereignGrant.aspx
 
Last edited:
royal rob said:
How much does the royal family cost? - BT
Click to expand...

This is the perfect link that explains it all in detail. Its plain to see where the money comes from and where it goes and what it is used for. I think the system that is in use in the UK is excellent. The royal family's lifestyles (such as clothes and vacations and luxuries) are not actually paid by the monies the taxpayers pay but are funded through good, solid investments of their respective duchies. Its also amazing for me to see that the expense to an individual taxpayer is relatively very low to provide for the work (expenses, travel, security, staff) the royals do, the upkeep of stately homes that are part of their national heritage (Crown Estates) and especially the way things are set up to ensure this system is in place for future monarchs. Everything pertaining to the financial expenditures of the BRF as far as their service to crown and country is accounted for. As far as their private lives, that really isn't any of our business.

Perhaps this all belongs in the Royal Finance thread and continued there. I just feel that people sometimes are way of the mark in assuming that it is the taxpayer's monies when it comes to seeing royals fly off on vacations or decorate a home or receive compensation when they do royal engagements with the idea if the taxpayer's funds were no longer available, these royal persons would be left out in the cold and down on their luck and its public opinion and public fundings that keep them in the lifestyles they have.
 
But in essence, providing Duchies is (indirect) state-funding. After all: was there no royal family, the revenues from the Duchies would flow in the purse of the Cancellor of the Exchequer, who can use that money very well these days...
 
But there is a monarchy and royal family. That's the reality.

Another thing we often overlook is it's only the Queen and Pince of Wales who are provided with incomes for official work. How they choose to spend the money is up to them.

So William, Catherine and Harry depend on others in the family to fund them. It's not until William is Duke of Cornwall will he have his own money
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
But in essence, providing Duchies is (indirect) state-funding. After all: was there no royal family, the revenues from the Duchies would flow in the purse of the Cancellor of the Exchequer, who can use that money very well these days...
Click to expand...

My interpretation of the duchies seems to vary from yours. Not saying that I'm correct but it would be interesting to find out what exactly would happen should the UK become a republic and there is no more royal family or "Firm".

From what I've read recently in the post royal rob posted, it stated "The Queen also generates income from her land and property portfolio. These assets are known as the Duchy of Lancaster and are held in trust for the sovereign. The Duchy is managed and run for the Queen and she receives all the net profits – about £12.5 million a year at the last count. This income is referred to as the Privy Purse."

To me, this denotes that this is her personal holdings. Should the royal family be ousted, I would be apt to believe that this would still remain the private wealth of the former Queen.

As for the Duchy of Cornwall, I really don't have a clue. :D
 
The Duchy of Lancaster:
"The Duchy of Lancaster is an ancient body responsible for managing an investment portfolio of land, property and financial investments. It also undertakes various administrative duties associated with the area of the historical County Palatine of Lancaster (today, primarily Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside). The Duchy’s main purpose is to provide income for the Sovereign as Duke of Lancaster, although the Sovereign is not entitled to any of the capital assets of the Duchy. [...]"
(link)

The Crown Estate:
"The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch. [...]"
(link)

To me it seems both the Duchy of Lancaster as well the Crown Estate are placed at Her Majesty's disposal, to provide an income. This is an indirect funding via the State, as I read it.
 
The Duchy of Lancaster is held by the crown. A republic would mean taking the crown from the reigning monarch and vesting its powers and property in some other entity.

A good way to tell if it's personal property is to see if George VI had to buy it from his brother. I've never heard that he had to do that for the Duchy of Lancaster (as he did with Sandringham and Balmoral), which would indicate that it's crown (i.e. state) property.

The current arrangement where the Queen gets the proceeds from property as opposed to taxation is certainly politically advantageous but I don't think the actual bookkeeping would be any different if she was directly subsidized. It's all state funds.
 
Last edited:
If the monarchy ceased to exist, and the duchy and crown estates was given over to the government it would be no where near enough to make up for the income loss from lack of tourists. Look at the mess Greece is in.
 
We have seen these duchies with a royal family since they predate the English Civil War. They were controlled by parliament.

Henry IV declared the Duchy of Lancaster as a separate entity from the crown. That's why it wasn't turned over as part of the Crown Estate being surrendered for the Civil list you George III


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
THe fact is no one knows what would happen.

Removing the monarchy constitutionally is completely different than through revolution.

It would be about compromise and some compensation - so (perhaps) the Duchy of Lancaster assets could stay with the ex-monarch, but Duchy of Cornwall would revert to Government.

or vice versa.

And the income could be used to maintain BP, KP, Windsor, Frogmore etc. as tourist attractions.
 
I am on a quest to find out more about the income of Queen Elizabeth, while she was a Princess of the United Kingdom. As she was not the "Prince of Wales" or Duke of Cornwall, she was not entitled to the income from those estates. Can point me in the right direction for more info from that time?


Facebook Royalty Page: House of Royals
 
LeDerius said:
I am on a quest to find out more about the income of Queen Elizabeth, while she was a Princess of the United Kingdom. As she was not the "Prince of Wales" or Duke of Cornwall, she was not entitled to the income from those estates. Can point me in the right direction for more info from that time?


Facebook Royalty Page: House of Royals
Click to expand...

11 Jul 1952 - Royal Family's Dependence On The Civil List - Trove

This is a newspaper article from 1952 that says that Elizabeth was given a Civil List allowance of 40,000 pounds.

It is quite an interesting read e.g. George VI, with no Duke of Cornwall during his reign, handed that income over to the state.

What I also found interesting is that Victoria, Edward VII, Edward VIII and George VI all voluntarily paid tax but George V and Elizabeth II decided not to do so (until Elizabeth was shamed into doing so in 1992).
 
Elizabeth was granted £15,000 a year at the age of 21, from monies allocated to the Civil List. (Before that she had presumably been given a personal allowance from the King's income, for any official duties from the Duchy of Lancaster, and for clothing and other expenses from his private fortune.)

I know that Parliament had to be negotiated with under very tough economic circumstances after the War. It was equally austere when the Royal Household again went back to Parliament at the time of Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip's engagement but Parliament agreed to an increase to £40,000 a year for Princess Elizabeth and an allowance of £10,000 for Philip, as they would be carrying out more engagements and both their expenses would be large.
 
Last edited:
It's the Independent, and this laughable article must be taken with a large pinch of salt.
 
Stop paying the BRF. Just give them back the Crown Estates and let them be. Thought Not!
 
padams2359 said:
Stop paying the BRF. Just give them back the Crown Estates and let them be. Thought Not!
Click to expand...

In fact, that is almost what happens now. The BRF no longer gets a civil list or an "apanage" as in other monarchies. They get instead a fixed percentage of the Crown Estates revenue, plus the revenue from the holdings in the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which is private money.
 
padams2359 said:
Stop paying the BRF. Just give them back the Crown Estates and let them be. Thought Not!
Click to expand...

When the monarch held the Crown Estates they were also expected to pay for the army and the legal system from those estates along with a large part of the administration of the country.

George III, in handing over the income of the Crown Estate, also handed over the funding of a large part of the country's administration to the government of the day.

The Duchies were set up to provide a clear difference between the income for private use and the income for running the country.

To give back the Crown Estates would necessitate the monarch becoming involved directly in political decisions - which they don't want and so don't want the Crown Estates back directly.

The income they now get from the CE is to pay for their official expenses and the maintenance of the Occupied Royal Palaces.
 
I understood the Danish proposal was that the apanage that would normally be paid automatically once the child turns 18 would not be paid to those of Queen's grandchildren who are not expected to carry out Royal duties. It would not affect the Queen, her sons and their wives or the Crown Prince's eldest son. So in many ways, it would not differ from the current British system where funding is provided only to those carrying out official duties.

My source is the Daily Mail so it may or may not be accurate
 
VictoriaB said:
I understood the Danish proposal was that the apanage that would normally be paid automatically once the child turns 18 would not be paid to those of Queen's grandchildren who are not expected to carry out Royal duties. It would not affect the Queen, her sons and their wives or the Crown Prince's eldest son. So in many ways, it would not differ from the current British system where funding is provided only to those carrying out official duties.

My source is the Daily Mail so it may or may not be accurate
Click to expand...

Well, clearly the legislature does not share the DM's concept of who will get what. And since it is all about the numbers, which multiply logarithmic-ally through generations, I understand that.
The heir needs an heir and a spare. MHO, with healthcare as good as it is, an heir and a spare is "enough" as long as as anarchy does not ruin things.
Beyond that, large families force legislatures to look at who gets what in ensuing generations.
Big families are a joy to the family, but not to the legislature. And no one wants to set a precedent that they can't back off of in the next generation.
We live an age where people run the cost numbers over years to make decisions. This is no surprise.
 
The Prince of Wales is paying out more money for his family.

Remember, the younger royals receive no income of their own, and must rely on Charles to foot the bill. The more Charles spends on his sons, the less he has for himself and Camilla.

It's why we won't see the royal trio doing hundreds of engagements a year, until Charles is King and William is Duke of Cornwall.

The cost of official work by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry, rose to £3.2m, an increase of almost 10 per cent on the previous year.
 
Rudolph said:
The Prince of Wales is paying out more money for his family.

Remember, the younger royals receive no income of their own, and must rely on Charles to foot the bill. The more Charles spends on his sons, the less he has for himself and Camilla.

It's why we won't see the royal trio doing hundreds of engagements a year, until Charles is King and William is Duke of Cornwall.

The cost of official work by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry, rose to £3.2m, an increase of almost 10 per cent on the previous year.
Click to expand...
As both the palace and I have said several times.
 
Last edited:
Rudolph said:
The Prince of Wales is paying out more money for his family.

Remember, the younger royals receive no income of their own, and must rely on Charles to foot the bill. The more Charles spends on his sons, the less he has for himself and Camilla.

It's why we won't see the royal trio doing hundreds of engagements a year, until Charles is King and William is Duke of Cornwall.

The cost of official work by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry, rose to £3.2m, an increase of almost 10 per cent on the previous year.
Click to expand...

Well, no. The pile of money that their work is lumped with rose to 3.2m.

That line is "Other expenditure including capital expenditure and transfer to reserves and funding for the official activities of D&DoC & PH"

So there's a lot happening there.

In 2012, the last time that "Capital expenditure, loan repayments and transfers to reserves" was on a separate line from the trio's funding, it was 1.1m

In 2013, the "Other expenditure including capital expenditure and transfer to reserves and funding for the official activities of D&DoC & PH" appeared for the first time, and the amount was 2.0m

Thus we can guess that, probably, that year, it cost about £1m for their activities.

In 2014, it rose to 2.89m, which was a much more significant jump than in the latest report.

The question is whether the capital expenditure/transfer to reserves/loan has stayed steady at ~1 million or whether it's also risen. It's unlikely to have decreased, so the funding for the trio is not going to be more than ~2 million.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
Royal Wealth and Finances 2: Sep 2022 -
Replies
17
Views
2K
Somebody
Somebody
Somebody
British Royal Family and the Media
Replies
0
Views
330
Somebody
Somebody
LadyFinn
Crown Princess Victoria & Prince Daniel's Official Visit to UK: Nov 29-Dec 1, 2023
Replies
17
Views
3K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn
Marengo
Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 -
2 3
Replies
78
Views
8K
Tatiana Maria
T
Marengo
British Royal Family Current Events 11: Sep 2022 -
7 8 9
Replies
250
Views
12K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom