Royal Wealth and Finances 1: Ending 2022

[Osipi]

Having said that, Meghan was only a B-list actress, so her net worth shouldn't be huge either. She must have made a lot of money with Suits though.

Fact is that she is going to continue pulling in an income from the acting jobs that she has had. Hallmark channels here in the US are still running movies that she's starred in and should Suits go into syndication, she'll also be pulling in royalties for those episodes she's appeared in each time they air. That's got to be considered a pretty neat little nest egg if you ask me.

 

[MARG]

I wonder how much HM is spending on clothes and accessories

That would definitely be a difficult exercise. I watched a documentary a while back about HM's Dresser and the work rooms the four or five seamstress's use. There were wonderfully light and airy rooms where there were innumerable bolts of cloth, probably going back to her Queen Mary's day at least.

I would imagine that many were gifts that have accumulated over the years and now HM has her own palace department where most of her clothes are made.

There were shelves and shelves is hats in various stages of re-trimming and a very long rail of her signature umbrella trimmed with every colour of the rainbow.

So, we can cost out her Launer handbags, shoes and brollies, but not her clothes per se. Her evening dress could be made by Alexander McQueen but she may have provided the horrendously expensive silk satin embossed fabric and that mat have been from her Mother's stock.

So, HM's are mostly tailor made for her, so how could anyone cost it out.

As to the cost of Megan's clothing, the DM et al have no idea what a successful 37 year old actress has in her closet (not accepting she is a died in the wool shoe addict as we saw in the Tig before Harry) and have recognised on her feet after she married. They mostly punt on the 'rich' side for shock and awe.

 

[Hallo girl]

That programme sounds really interesting

 

[BaiSoSo]

Originally Posted by Mbruno
Having said that, Meghan was only a B-list actress, so her net worth shouldn't be huge either. She must have made a lot of money with Suits though.

Fact is that she is going to continue pulling in an income from the acting jobs that she has had. Hallmark channels here in the US are still running movies that she's starred in and should Suits go into syndication, she'll also be pulling in royalties for those episodes she's appeared in each time they air. That's got to be considered a pretty neat little nest egg if you ask me.

I would add: regardless if one felt she was A-list, B-list, she was a working actress who was pulling in $50,000 per episode... many people don't make that per year. Meghan also had, tv movies, a contract with a clothing line and the Tig as way to earn an income. She may not have been at royality status but she was doing quite well for herself.

 

[Rudolph]

The key financial details reported today are:

The total Sovereign Grant for 2018-19, including the dedicated amount for Reservicing, amounted to £82.2m (2017-18 £76.1m), equivalent to £1.24 per person in the UK.

The £82.2m Grant is made up of a Core Grant of £49.3m and an additional dedicated amount for Reservicing of £32.9m.

Additional income generated from facilities management charges and property rental increased to £17.8m (2017-18 £17.3m), up 3%.

The official expenditure in the year met by the Sovereign Grant was £67million, up 41% (2017-18 £47.4m), primarily due to higher levels of spending on property, including £14.1m on Reservicing and £25.1m on maintenance from the Core Grant.

£15.2m was transferred to the Sovereign Grant reserve (2017-18 £28.7m) to fund future phases of the Reservicing of Buckingham Palace.

Other key data for 2018-19:

Over 3,200 official engagements across the UK and overseas undertaken by members of the Royal Family.

Over 160,000 guests welcomed at Royal Palaces at events such as garden parties and investitures.

Over 7.9m people saw items from the Royal Collection Trust in Royal Palaces.


Read more: Financial Reports 2018-19

 

[Dman]

You know what? I think it’s a big slap in the royal family’s face when people get upset about the royals spending. That family work too hard on behalf of the people, nation and Commonwealth, for people to complain about the price of palace, castle and home renovations.

Do people understand that members of the royal family live and work in very old places? Do people understand that it’s takes lots money for members of the royal family to conduct official engagements around the UK, Commonwealth and world on behalf of the Monarchy and people? I mean, really?

 

[Lilyflo]

You know what? I think it’s a big slap in the royal family’s face when people get upset about the royals spending. That family work too hard on behalf of the people, nation and Commonwealth, for people to complain about the price of palace, castle and home renovations.

Do people understand that members of the royal family live and work in very old places? Do people understand that it’s takes lots money for members of the royal family to conduct official engagements around the UK, Commonwealth and world on behalf of the Monarchy and people? I mean, really?

No they don't. I'm fairly sure that any survey would show that a large % of British people:

• don't know that most foreign visits & tours are at the request of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office,
• don't understand what the Crown Estates are or how the profits are used,
• believe that the BRF are funded via the taxes taken from people's income,
• don't realise that the BRF don't actually own BP, Clarence House, KP, Frogmore etc.

They see headlines in papers about "HRH somebody has spent £££ of your taxes on this extravagant thing for themselves". They see photos of the BRF in designer clothes & expensive jewels jetting off around the world or attending banquets & functions in palaces or top hotels. People whose lives are very different to that ask questions about what benefit the BRF are to them & in many ways that's understandable if they don't know the full picture of what the BRF does & how it's financed.

 

[Chloep]

For those who don't bother to read the actual report, but still link the mindless, pathetic drivel that the Fail pushes. The funding for William and Harry (and their families) rose all but 89k from the year before Meghan joined. Of course not one single British far-right tabloid will report on this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1143505562426064896

 

[wyevale]

Brand Finance estimated in 2017 that the monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy to be around £1.8bn a year, drawing in an additional £550m of tourism revenues a year, and an increase in trade, from the Royal Family acting as ambassadors, supposedly worth £150m a year.

 

[Mbruno]

No they don't. I'm fairly sure that any survey would show that a large % of British people:

• don't know that most foreign visits & tours are at the request of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office,
• don't understand what the Crown Estates are or how the profits are used,
• believe that the BRF are funded via the taxes taken from people's income,
• don't realise that the BRF don't actually own BP, Clarence House, KP, Frogmore etc.

They see headlines in papers about "HRH somebody has spent £££ of your taxes on this extravagant thing for themselves". They see photos of the BRF in designer clothes & expensive jewels jetting off around the world or attending banquets & functions in palaces or top hotels. People whose lives are very different to that ask questions about what benefit the BRF are to them & in many ways that's understandable if they don't know the full picture of what the BRF does & how it's financed.

To be fair, the Sovereign Grant is still an indirect form of public funding as, otherwise, 100 % of the Crown Estate surplus revenue would go to the Treasury and be spent elsewhere.

Having said that, the British Royal Family is still the only RF n Europe AFAIK that is not funded by general taxes ( the most precise definition of “ taxpayer money”). That puts the British royals in a more comfiortable position compared to their continental cousins as far as criticism of their expenses is concerned.

 

[Lilyflo]

To be fair, the Sovereign Grant is still an indirect form of public funding as, otherwise, 100 % of the Crown Estate surplus revenue would go to the Treasury and be spent elsewhere.

The point I made was that many people believe the BRF funding comes directly from the taxes they pay & the media compounds that misunderstanding by the way they report on BRF expenditure.

 

[victor1319]

£15.2m was transferred to the Sovereign Grant reserve (2017-18 £28.7m) to fund future phases of the Reservicing of Buckingham Palace.

I thought, the Buckingham Palace is owned by the state and not by the royal family.

Then the state should pay for the palace like for Downing Street or the Parliament building, but not via the Sovereign Grant.

To be fair, the Sovereign Grant is still an indirect form of public funding as, otherwise, 100 % of the Crown Estate surplus revenue would go to the Treasury and be spent elsewhere.

I thought, William the Conquerer owned (with his Barons) all of England. The Crown Estate is the tiny left over, of which the royal family gets just a fraction of the income.

In some ways the British Royal Family shares the fate so many royal families which were "revolutionized" from the throne, but in slow motion and without the violence.

 

[Mbruno]

I thought, the Buckingham Palace is owned by the state and not by the royal family.

Then the state should pay for the palace like for Downing Street or the Parliament building, but not via the Sovereign Grant.

No, Buckingham Palace is not owned by the State. It is held in trust by the monarch as part of the Occupied Royal Palaces Estate, which is also separate from the Crown Estate. The funds for maintaining the occupied palaces, as I understand it, now come directly from the Sovereign Grant.



In other countries, e.g. Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands, the royal palaces (other than those that are privately owned by the RF) are indeed owned by the State. In Spain, for example, the National Heritage agency mantains the palaces. In Sweden, there is a separate grant to the Royal Court (other than the King's apanage) which is earmarked for maintenance of the royal palaces. Either way, the money comes from general taxes.


The situation in Belgium is a little bit more complicated. The Royal Palace of Brussels, which is not used as a residence, but only as a working palace, is owned by the State, but most of the royal residences (perhaps even the Chateau de Laeken itself ?) belong to the Royal Donation Trust, and not to the State directly.

 

[victor1319]

No, Buckingham Palace is not owned by the State. It is held in trust by the monarch as part of the Occupied Royal Palaces Estate, which is also separate from the Crown Estate. The funds for maintaining the occupied palaces, as I understand it, now come directly from the Sovereign Grant.

So, it is complicated. Thank you for the explanation!

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Brand Finance estimated in 2017 that the monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy to be around £1.8bn a year, drawing in an additional £550m of tourism revenues a year, and an increase in trade, from the Royal Family acting as ambassadors, supposedly worth £150m a year.

That is an estimation really build on nothing. As if tourism to London or the size of the British economy plummets when there is no Elizabeth or Charles anymore. Republics like France, Germany, Italy see their cities so overflooded that they have to come with strategies to dam the tide. I am sure there will be barely any tourist who would not visit London because there is no monarch anymore. Come on.

The key financial details reported today are:

The total Sovereign Grant for 2018-19, including the dedicated amount for Reservicing, amounted to £82.2m (2017-18 £76.1m), equivalent to £1.24 per person in the UK.

The £82.2m Grant is made up of a Core Grant of £49.3m and an additional dedicated amount for Reservicing of £32.9m.

Additional income generated from facilities management charges and property rental increased to £17.8m (2017-18 £17.3m), up 3%.

The official expenditure in the year met by the Sovereign Grant was £67million, up 41% (2017-18 £47.4m), primarily due to higher levels of spending on property, including £14.1m on Reservicing and £25.1m on maintenance from the Core Grant.

£15.2m was transferred to the Sovereign Grant reserve (2017-18 £28.7m) to fund future phases of the Reservicing of Buckingham Palace.

Other key data for 2018-19:

Over 3,200 official engagements across the UK and overseas undertaken by members of the Royal Family.

Over 160,000 guests welcomed at Royal Palaces at events such as garden parties and investitures.

Over 7.9m people saw items from the Royal Collection Trust in Royal Palaces.


Read more: Financial Reports 2018-19

That still makes the British monarchy cheaper than their Dutch colleagues, but the statistics are difficult to compare. The Dutch calculate the costs of the deployment of military and civil services, the use of infrastructure, even the use of the State Information Agency and every hiccup to come to a complete overview of "what does the monarchy really cost?" (appr. 100 million Euro in the Netherlands without the huge costs for protection). The costs of police protection are not included because it would be unfair: every Dutchman, royal or not, who needs police protection receives this. This has nothing to do with monarchy.

Only when we make statistics based on equal calculation terms, we can make a good comparison between the monarchies. My assessment is that the British monarchy delivers value for theur money while in my country it remains a bit blurry why it has such a prize tag for an - in comparison- more down to earth monarchy.

 

[jacqui24]

Well, here's the bottom line. What is the alternative? Because the country does need a head of state. And certainly BRF is attractive and well known around the world. They act as ambassadors on top of The Queen being head of the state.

Presidents and First Families don't come cheap either.

 

[Hallo girl]

Our queen is still working at 93, her husband retired in his nineties.
Her son is still working in his seventies.

They have my vote.

 

[Iluvbertie]

To be fair, the Sovereign Grant is still an indirect form of public funding as, otherwise, 100 % of the Crown Estate surplus revenue would go to the Treasury and be spent elsewhere.

Having said that, the British Royal Family is still the only RF n Europe AFAIK that is not funded by general taxes ( the most precise definition of “ taxpayer money”). That puts the British royals in a more comfiortable position compared to their continental cousins as far as criticism of their expenses is concerned.

Another alternative for the income of the Crown Estates is for that income to stay with the monarch. Each monarch, since George III, has voluntarily handed it over to the state with some coming back for their official duties. There is no guarantee that future monarchs will do so. They could keep the lot (I don't see if happening but it could).

Effectively the monarch is giving the state the 85% of the Crown Estate not the other way round.

 

[tommy100]

I wonder how the British public would react if that were to happen - a future monarch, maybe Charles or William, keeping hold of the income from the Crown Estates.

 

[Princess Larisa]

I now wish the Queen would do it just once. The squaking would be hilarious. But maybe some people would actually learn how things work, although doubtful.

 

[wyevale]

a future monarch, maybe Charles or William, keeping hold of the income from the Crown Estates.

This will never happen, each and every Monarch since the reign of George III has followed this model, negotiating the continuance of this 'deal', at the start of their reign..

 

[Iluvbertie]

I now wish the Queen would do it just once. The squaking would be hilarious. But maybe some people would actually learn how things work, although doubtful.

They only get one chance to keep everything from the Crown Estate - at the very beginning of their reign. The Queen has had her chance.

 

[Mbruno]

Another alternative for the income of the Crown Estates is for that income to stay with the monarch. Each monarch, since George III, has voluntarily handed it over to the state with some coming back for their official duties. There is no guarantee that future monarchs will do so. They could keep the lot (I don't see if happening but it could).

Effectively the monarch is giving the state the 85% of the Crown Estate not the other way round.

The "deal" was actually more complicated than you describe it.



Since the Glorious Revolution, when Parliament took control of the revenue from general taxes, the monarch had been relieved of paying for the military or paying the national debt, but, up to the 18th century, the monarch was still personally responsible for paying for the costs of both the civil government and the royal household, which he had to meet basically with the revenue from the Crown lands plus a few taxes that Parliament made available to him.



Over time, the King incurred in severe personal debt as the revenue from the Crown lands became insufficient to meet the government's expenses. That is why King George III agreed to surrender the income of the Crown Estate to the Treasury in exchange for being relieved of responsibility for the cost of the civil government and associated debts, as well as receiving a civil list voted by Parliament to fund the Royal Household.


So it wasn't really a gesture of magnanimity or kindness on the part of the sovereign, but a way out of his financial problems. Of course, nowadays, the Crown Estate revenue is just a drop of water in the sea of revenue from general taxes and other sources available to the Treasury, but, still, we cannot lose the historic perspective.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am aware of all that. I was putting forward the simple line which still holds true - the monarch surrenders all of the income of the Crown Estate at the beginning of their reign to the government and the government gives them back some for their official duties.

The history behind it is even more complicated than you have described it and there was much tooing and froing about how to make it work.

 

[Tarlita]

I saw in a documentary one time, they said The Monarch owns the Palace of Westminster - By Right of The Crown. I have trouble trying to work out the meaning by right of the crown here.

 

[theroyalfly]

I saw in a documentary one time, they said The Monarch owns the Palace of Westminster - By Right of The Crown. I have trouble trying to work out the meaning by right of the crown here.

"The Palace of Westminster is therefore Crown land because it is land in which there is a Crown interest, in this case an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown."

Please refer to 17 May 2006 : Column 339

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldhansrd/vo060517/text/60517-22.htm

 

[Tarlita]

Thank you for that Royal fly. I felt by right of the crown could have several different meanings.

 

[Stefan]

No, Buckingham Palace is not owned by the State. It is held in trust by the monarch as part of the Occupied Royal Palaces Estate, which is also separate from the Crown Estate. The funds for maintaining the occupied palaces, as I understand it, now come directly from the Sovereign Grant.

The question is who is the owner of the occupied Royal Palaces Estate? s that not the State. Or who is it?

 

[Lumutqueen]

The question is who is the owner of the occupied Royal Palaces Estate? s that not the State. Or who is it?

I don’t believe there is single “owner”, it’s cared for and maintained by Royal Household Property Section. So at a push, Lord Steward but unlikely,

 

[theroyalfly]

The question is who is the owner of the occupied Royal Palaces Estate? s that not the State. Or who is it?

The Occupied Royal Palaces are held in trust by the Crown Estate for future generations.

List of Occupied Royal Palaces

Buckingham Palace
St James’s Palace, Clarence House and Marlborough House Mews
The residential and office areas of Kensington Palace
The Royal Mews and Royal Paddocks at Hampton Court, and
Windsor Castle and buildings in the Home and Great Parks at Windsor.

"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.

The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation's finances."


https://webarchive.nationalarchives...m-treasury.gov.uk/leg_sovereign_grant_faq.htm

https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/resources/faqs/#whoownsthecrownestate

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-...16/royal-property#S6CV0252P0_19950116_CWA_187