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.
True, true, and like I said, I'm not sure about the whole not paying rent thing. Really it is one of those darned if you do darned if you don't situation.........let it crumble, tourism goes down, economy goes down......have the taxpayers pay everything.....have the RF pay everything....... things like that. I think the RF should chip in some, and I do agree that another 1 million pounds could do a lot of good somewhere else as well. There just isn't an easy solution to this.


It's great that ordinary people are donating, but there are still thousands of people that don't! If you really think about it, if everyone would donated to their maximum compacity, anything the RF or any other rich people donated would just be a bonus. Then you could say snootily "Who needs their money anyway" LOL!!!:ROFLMAO: Can you tell I love getting people to help those who are less fortunate? ^_^


I understand about the Nottingham people for example, but on the other hand, there is a bit of a filter effect. Even though tourism might not directly effect them, it still has its benefits. For example, someone who benefited from tourism brings that money to another place, spends it there, and so on and so forth.

As for the large percentage not bothering, isn't that true in most places/ countries though? Once you've lived in one place for awhile, you want to go somewhere else and see places other than the one you live in.

I love the idea of a begging bowl :ROFLMAO: Too perfect.

Oh! I just read that the Queen is going to be a Grandmother again!! Too fun. I may be a bit behind, but my internet has been screwy. Gives me warms fuzzies though.
 
It's great that ordinary people are donating, but there are still thousands of people that don't! If you really think about it, if everyone would donated to their maximum compacity, anything the RF or any other rich people donated would just be a bonus. Then you could say snootily "Who needs their money anyway" LOL!!!:ROFLMAO: Can you tell I love getting people to help those who are less fortunate? ^_^
I understand about the Nottingham people for example, but on the other hand, there is a bit of a filter effect. Even though tourism might not directly effect them, it still has its benefits. For example, someone who benefited from tourism brings that money to another place, spends it there, and so on and so forth.

On the whole, those that make their money from tourism tend to spend their loot abroad.:D

The timing was not thought out and insensitive to say the least, I still think that HM should make a sizeable contribution to the repairs as she enjoys the major benefits. If all the mega rich people like HM, JK Rowling, Tony Blair etc donated 500k each, then all the repairs could be carried out at once and no need to burden the taxpayer further. The government could cancel the 2012 Olympics and use that money! :D

I'm all for encouraging people to help those less fortunate, but I think you are a believer in the old saying "The poor get poorer, while the rich get richer". :ROFLMAO:
 
If I believe in that saying, can I be one of the rich people?:flowers: :D I would love to see richer people than myself donate huuuuuuuuuuge sums of money, and I am certainly all for trying to get them to do that, but I think it is far more likely that I will be able to get my family to donate, put a bug up their butt, have them transfer that bug and get the common people to donate then it would be for me to get my president, for example, to donate. Anyhoo, dreams of an idealist! :angel:

This may seem totally random....but I wish the Queen would change some of her clothes. I love how she has looked lately, but when she wears those one piece dresses, it just does not look as nice. They are like sheets with minimal tailoring. I love the dress coats and hats.....but yeah. I'm not complaining overall, but some of her outfits I would like to torch. ^_^ Blue, well, slightly darker blue is a good color on her I think. I also thought the bright pink with black accents was very classy.
 
I think these days, now Buckingham Palace is open to the public every summer, people might put up less resistance to helping pay than when it was firmly closed to the public and we had the "while it's standing it's theirs but as soon as it starts to fall down it's ours" mindset at work. I'm glad the Queen overruled her mother and allowed Buckingham Palace to be opened to the public in order to help finance the Windsor repairs; just saying that the royal palaces are public buildings is all very well, but it seemed contemptuous to say it when the palaces were closed to the public but the public were expected to pay for upkeep.
 
I totally agree. If the Queen pays for the repairs she should actually say, "Sod you lot, you're not coming in anymore". When it was her house, she should have paid for it. It's now open to the public and they either take an increase in ticket prices or they pay half.
 
Definitly increase the ticket prices, then those who want to, pay for it. If it's that popular an increase to £50 for the tour should solve the repair cost problem. I still like the idea of the begging bowl!
 
Last edited:
I think the queen should increase ticket prices at the royal residences to pay for part of it. On the one hand she is not technically owner of these buildings in the sense that they are held by her in trust for the nation, or something like that right?, but then really its only her fam that gets to enjoy it, even if they open BP in the summer, so really the queen should at least put up part of the $. I also dont understand how such a building would be allowed to fall into such a state. I love the queen but i think she should find a way to fund this without going to the taxpayer! Maybe she should also open BP at the weekends when she's not there or over the christmas holidays.
 
Put up the prices?? A single adult ticket for the walk through BP is already fifteen pounds a head. Now don't get me wrong - I've paid it and will do so again, but if you put them up TOO high people stay away and your revenue goes down.

(Oh yes and re the comment about taxpayers in Nottingham - having seen what the local Council have spent millions on for the revamp of our Market Square - personally I'd rather it had gone to restore BP: PS - my avatar picture was taken in that very Market Square...)
 
HM's personal fortune, excluding the crown jewels and the royal palaces is estimated at £360 million. That excludes money in bank accounts, but includes a substantial share portfolio.

People in the UK have to pay, the same as tourists, to visit a tiny portion of a property they supposedly own. Even a small increase to £25 would help towards the cost, with a like for like donation from HM. If as people on here are suggesting, the main attraction for coming to London is to visit BP, then they won't mind paying it, after all a ticket for the theatre will cost you four times as much. :eek:

GillW, you paid for the market place revamp from your local council tax, another thing HM does not pay!
 
Last edited:
Doesn't the Crown receive a Grant in Aid, specifically earmarked for the upkeep of HM's palaces, and independent of her Civil List monies?

I must say, Skydragon, that I love your begging bowl suggestion.
 
But, that is a mere £15 million! :ROFLMAO:
 
If I were the Queen, I would simply move out and go where I wasn't in danger of being hit by falling mortar if nothing was done about it. Perhaps I would even put a "rooms for let" sign on the gates as I went to my (properly-maintained) privately-owned homes.
 
Let's see what the penny pinchers have to say when little Lady Louise is brained by a piece of falling masonry.
 
Are you saying Edward & Sophie are not maintaining Bagshot Park either! :eek:
 
But, that is a mere £15 million! :ROFLMAO:

I hope that amount is annually for each residence, because that amount won't go very far to meet the costs of all the palaces!
In any case, I thought the Duchy of Lancaster (or the Crown Estate rather) covered the cost of maintaining the official residences, as the Civil List is strictly for travel and other expenses related to official engagements, and the Civil List monies never seem quite adequate for covering the enormous costs I can't even imagine Buckingham Palace alone draws! :eek:

My aimless ponderings now beg the question: What is the difference, if any, between the Duchy of Lancaster and the Crown Estate? Is it that the Duchy is something privately inherited and un-entailed, where the Crown Estate is entailed in the Monarchy and as such cannot be 'sold' or let as a 'private property' could be?

Bagshot Park is definitely part of the Crown Estate. Technically, the Wessexes pay rent to the Crown Estate. It makes me chuckle thinking of them paying "rent". :D
 
How about a begging bowl at every palace?

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. Established over 700 years ago, the Duchy of Lancaster is a body created under Charter.
The Duchy of Lancaster - Accounts Annual Reports and Investments
remember to add 3 x 000's to the figures shown, ie. £10628,000.00

The Crown Estate is worth almost £6 billion and encompasses three properties sectors – urban, rural and marine, £191 million in revenue surplus – all of the net revenue generated annually by The Crown Estate is paid to the Government for the benefit of the taxpayer.

Our Portfolio
 
How about a begging bowl at every palace?

The begging bowl truly is a fine idea. :D I wonder who might toss a few pounds in there? Perhaps hopefuls for one of those great initial sequences behind their names. A Penny for a KCVO? A Thistle or Garter perhaps?
 
I think that you might find, Casiraghi Trio, that there is a specific Grant in Aid to cover the cost of travel, as well as the Grant in Aid to defray upkeep costs, both separate from Civil List monies.

No one wants the Queen, her family, or the vast retinue of servants and courtiers to be in any danger. That's never been the point of the debate.

One thing which I found remarkable was that Clarence House was refurbished before Charles moved in after the death of his grandmother. The cost of this refurbishment was approximately 5 million pounds! Whereas I couldn't cavil at all at any modernisation or preservation program, I found it astonishing that the Queen Mother must have been living in royal squalor for such a huge expenditure to be found necessary.

Further, whether it was true or not, it was reported in the Australian press that a great deal of money was spent on providing new accommodation for Mrs Parker Bowles who had moved in with Charles, well before she and the prince married. This news occasioned a great deal of rancorous and negative comment about them both at the time, I recall.

Taxpayers, if they foot the bill, are entitled to explanations. It is not, so far as I can see, unreasonable for them to do so. Neither is it, so far as I can see, an attack on Her Majesty, personally.

A number of royal palaces, including Kensington Palace, are maintained and paid for by a privately run and independent charity, Historic Royal Palaces, and do not receive monies towards their upkeep from the Grant in Aid funds.
 
I think that you might find, Casiraghi Trio, that there is a specific Grant in Aid to cover the cost of travel, as well as the Grant in Aid to defray upkeep costs, both separate from Civil List monies.

No one wants the Queen, her family, or the vast retinue of servants and courtiers to be in any danger. That's never been the point of the debate.

One thing which I found remarkable was that Clarence House was refurbished before Charles moved in after the death of his grandmother. The cost of this refurbishment was approximately 5 million pounds! Whereas I couldn't cavil at all at any modernisation or preservation program, I found it astonishing that the Queen Mother must have been living in royal squalor for such a huge expenditure to be found necessary.
I'm not saying this refurbishment was or was not appropriate, but it did occur to me that perhaps it was so expensive because he converted everything into special eco-saving technologies, such as he does for many of the Duchy of Cornwall homes? Those things, such as the recycled-rainwater sewage systems, are state-of-the-art and admirable, although I would hope he would have used Duchy funds to pay for such installations.
Also, he had to furbish the house to accommodate (not only CPB as you point out next) but also his sons, where the Queen Mother had lived there alone, hadn't she?

Taxpayers, if they foot the bill, are entitled to explanations. It is not, so far as I can see, unreasonable for them to do so. Neither is it, so far as I can see, an attack on Her Majesty, personally.

Amen to that. :cool:
 
I'm sure that Prince Charles would have paid something himself from his own funds. I imagine that it may well have been a requirement. Clarence House is, I know, an important building and it's entirely appropriate that it be appropriately maintained for the nation.

However, I wasn't asked to contribute towards the 5 million pounds cost so I'm not complaining, really. I mention it only in the context of 15 million pounds being seen as insufficient to repair and maintain those palaces which the royal family use.

Often, these sorts of reports are used to construct and build upon a certain image of the royal family, usually to its detriment. I believe, then, that the royal family should not only be accountable but be seen to be accountable, in its own best interests. There is often an insidious sub-text to these complaints which are apparent to those of us in Commonwealth countries, and which betray a purpose beyond the simple and usual grumbling at perceived extravagance.
 
But, that is a mere £15 million! :ROFLMAO:


Down fromn 29 million pounds in 1991.

In other words the amount spent on maintaining the royal palaces was 29 million in 1991 but now only 15 million is allocated. www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/9900563es.pdf

Is it any wonder that there are problems?

I don't know for sure about Britain but what I could buy in 1991 wouldn't buy half I what I buy now and my income has more than doubled in that time.

Surely, the Grant-in-Aid should have increased in the 16 years since 1991 to maintain these buildings not been halved?
 
I'm sure that Prince Charles would have paid something himself from his own funds. I imagine that it may well have been a requirement. Clarence House is, I know, an important building and it's entirely appropriate that it be appropriately maintained for the nation.

However, I wasn't asked to contribute towards the 5 million pounds cost so I'm not complaining, really. I mention it only in the context of 15 million pounds being seen as insufficient to repair and maintain those palaces which the royal family use.

Often, these sorts of reports are used to construct and build upon a certain image of the royal family, usually to its detriment. I believe, then, that the royal family should not only be accountable but be seen to be accountable, in its own best interests. There is often an insidious sub-text to these complaints which are apparent to those of us in Commonwealth countries, and which betray a purpose beyond the simple and usual grumbling at perceived extravagance.


According to reports at the time such as: BBC NEWS | UK | Clarence House to open to public

The 4.5 - 5 million pounds was for structural repairs etc while Charles paid for the rest of the restoration himself.
 
Wasn't Charles's contribution limited to paying for restoration of the private areas of Clarence House, not to the rooms that were being opened to the public?
 
Your point is well made, Chrissy57, but since the early nineties, the Queen's financial arrangements and public funds in support have all radically altered. The Monarch doesn't lose at all, we're told. What the Crown loses on the swings, it gains on the roundabouts. Be this as it may.......

My personal view is that Her Majesty was ill-advised to capitulate to the common clamour and agree to pay income tax. I think that, given historical precedence, she should have been permitted to maintain this one, single privilege, and heaven only knows, The Crown has been constrained to surrender nearly all others. True, times change and Monarchy must adapt, but this whole issue was predicated on the restoration costs of Windsor Castle (36 million pounds) for which many objected to paying, as it is, much more than Buckingham Palace, Her Majesty's home. I recall reading, with some indignation, that prior to the fire, Windsor's insurance policies had been downgraded, to save on the premiums! Hopefully, these penny-pinching advisers were subsequently shown the door!

What transpired then was the short, ignorant, incompetent view, which failed to consider the intrinsic value of Windsor to the nation, no matter who does or doesn't live in it.

Had The Queen not been prevailed upon to pay income tax, then much of this complicated fiddling and diddling and never-ending arguing with and about accounts and rows over who pays what for which would never have arisen.

The upshot is that Queen Elizabeth is frequently assailed by critics. My opinion is that the Royal Family does itself no favours by not elaborating on its reasons and rationale for what it needs or requires to be done, i.e. explaining. The unfortunate impression is that they, perhaps, believe themselves above this, apparently, demeaning exercise. Again, I think that they're ill-advised. Instead of an opportunity to understand and appreciate any difficulties, we have, in lieu, forensic accountants pouring over every penny and pound in an effort to 'catch them out'. Not edifying; and surely humiliating for Her Majesty.

In sum, I don't care what Elizabeth II cost, though I'm not so sanguine about the lesser royals. I think that she's the hardest working, most dedicated and most devoted of all. Throughout my life she's been the template for a strong, honourable woman, who accepts her role with dignity and determination. Her commitment to do her duty is exemplary and unmatched, and has been for decades.

If anyone deserved a tax-break, she did. I know that she possesses vast wealth, but that's not my point.
 
When calling for more money to do the repairs it is worth considering how many advisors have advisors to advise them what they might need to get advisors in to advise them on what they need to do. If they got rid of some of these flunkys, they could save a tidy sum themselves towards the repairs. How did it get so bad that nobody noticed, where has the money that has been allocated over the years gone. Somebody seriously needs to look at how they have set out their budgets.

I also think HM has done a marvelous job over the years, but I think a fully working NHS, Education and OAP is far more important to the majority of the people who pay their taxes, than paying for the restoration of a building, as you say, they had under insured.

I found this old article about the tax HM pays, you might be interested to know that no tax is paid on the income from the Duchy of Lancaster

New Statesman - Keeping ma'am about the money
 
There is often an insidious sub-text to these complaints which are apparent to those of us in Commonwealth countries, and which betray a purpose beyond the simple and usual grumbling at perceived extravagance.

I think this part of your post strikes on a great point. It is unfortunate that nearly all writings about royalty are motivated by an agenda of some kind. If it's not a Republican press undermining their 'good works' to highlight the 'extravagance', it's a Labour MP trying to squash a Civil List increase proposal because he/she wants more funds for a welfare project, or else something totally different, like designers pushing for royal warrants.

All I mean by my comment that £15m seems like a small sum for the repairs costs of all official royal residences.
I do agree that there are "more important" things, healthcare and education being the most important. But good historical preservation goes a long way to keeping the cities looking good. When buildings start falling into disrepair, it just makes economic problems worse. London is one of the great cities in the world. As a longtime American Anglophile, I hope it will always be so. :D
 
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.

It's strange to think of David Linley being "broke". Maybe he and Serena live very expensively and so are spending as much as they earn, but he definitely makes a lot of money from his furniture. Linley furniture is among the Highest End furniture in the world, true largely because of his royal association, but also because it is all so excellently hand crafted. The viscount collaborated with James Ogilvy when the latter was launching his Luxury Briefings, and the two rather helped each other, with Ogilvy advertising for Linley and giving Linley furniture rave reviews in his magazine. The result must have been even more prestige and money for Linley. I think David Linley must make a lot of money, and if ever he is "broke" it is only because he and his wife spend every penny of what comes in: i.e. his Beamer motorbike and her Armani clothes! :D
 
Well, considering the Crown Estate generates at least 250 million pounds a year for the Exchequer, I think the overall cost of the monarchy to the British taxpayer is minimal.
 
Viscount Linley has never been broke in his life. Maybe he didn't have all the millions he wanted, but he certainly has it now after selling off his mother's jewels, not to mention the $10 million she left him and Lady Sarah.
 
My personal view is that Her Majesty was ill-advised to capitulate to the common clamour and agree to pay income tax. I think that, given historical precedence, she should have been permitted to maintain this one, single privilege, and heaven only knows, The Crown has been constrained to surrender nearly all others.

It was pointed out at the time that there isn't much historical precedent for the monarch not to pay tax on essentially private income. It seems to have been done at least to an extent in the last few reigns and only really stopped with George VI. I think part of the problem was that when people tried to find out the extent of the Queen's personal fortune they were always told that it was private and there was no reason to divulge any information about her private money just as the rest of us wouldn't expect to see our private financial doings splashed across the newspapers. But when it came to calls for her to pay tax, the response was alway that it really wasn't that simple, her public and private monies weren't exactly separate, etc etc. This looked like a really classic case of trying to have one's cake and eat it.

While there's no point taxing the Civil List income, which is mostly supposed to be a reimbursement of expenses anyway and would have to be increased just so they could get the tax back and still cover the expenses, which seems like an exercise in unnecessary paperwork, I do think there's a case to be made for the Queen to pay tax on her private income and investments if they really are private, as her advisors have always claimed.

In sum, I don't care what Elizabeth II cost, though I'm not so sanguine about the lesser royals. I think that she's the hardest working, most dedicated and most devoted of all. Throughout my life she's been the template for a strong, honourable woman, who accepts her role with dignity and determination. Her commitment to do her duty is exemplary and unmatched, and has been for decades.

I do think it was unfair that, because people were fed up with the antics of Fergie and Prince Edward and soured on the monarchy because of Diana's propaganda, the Civil List payments to all the minor royals were stopped. Diana, as the wife of the Prince of Wales, wasn't covered anyway, and nor was Fergie after her divorce, so they weren't affected anyway. But people like the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, who'd reluctantly given up their hope of private life to support the monarchy for decades, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, who lived lives dedicated to public service and paid, in the Duchess's case, with physical and mental breakdowns, and Princess Alexandra, who continued to support the monarchy via public service for decades while married and raising a family, all had their Civil List income withdrawn as though they were the ones who'd caused the problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom