Royal Wealth and Finances 1: Ending 2022

[JR76]

Isn't Skaugum outside of Oslo also a working estate?

 

[AC21091968]

Exclusive: Harry and Meghan urged to use Netflix cash to pay back £2.4m Frogmore Cott

I am not quite sure on where to pose, so please move this post if necessary

According to The Telegraph (right-leaning and pro-monarchy newspaper), two Conservative MPs have called Harry and Meghan to "quickly" pay back the £2.4 million pubic money on renovation of Frogmore cottage, after the Netflix deal was announced. Phil Dampier, a royal commentator also questioned why Harry and Meghan could not stay at Highgrove House (Prince Charles’s Gloucestershire home), when visiting the UK. This article is written by Camilla Tominey, who is an associated editor for reporting on the Royals and politics.

The two Conservative MPs are Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Deputy chair of parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, MP for The Cotswolds) and Bim Afolami (former member of the Public Accounts Committee, MP for Hitchin and Harpenden). I think this is one of the rare occasions that Conservative MPs raise concerns on royal finances.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...urged-use-netflix-cash-pay-back-24m-frogmore/

The Telegraph articles are free to read until Monday (7th September) due to a protest by Extinction Rebellion

 

[RJC]

Bit of confusion once again in one of the paragraphs between Frogmore House and Frogmore Cottage. It says they held their wedding reception in Frogmore House and then renovated it???

"Situated in front of a lake, Frogmore House, where the couple hosted their wedding reception in May 2018, the Grade-II five-bedroom property underwent extensive remodelling to turn five properties back into a single mansion before the couple moved there in April 2019"

 

[AC21091968]

Bit of confusion once again in one of the paragraphs between Frogmore House and Frogmore Cottage. It says they held their wedding reception in Frogmore House and then renovated it???

"Situated in front of a lake, Frogmore House, where the couple hosted their wedding reception in May 2018, the Grade-II five-bedroom property underwent extensive remodelling to turn five properties back into a single mansion before the couple moved there in April 2019"

I do think it was a mistake that could have been pick up by proof-reading. Frogmore Cottage is Grade-II listed that has five separate units for housing Windsor estate workers in the early 21st century. In 2019, the house was converted to 4 bedroom and nursery for a single family home, which was started before Archie's birth.

Link to Frogmore Cottage's wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frogmore_Cottage

Frogmore House is a Grade-I listed English country house owned by the Crown Estate. It has definitely more than five bedrooms, give that there are a lot guest/drawing rooms (i.e. The Dining Room, The Japan Room, The Queen's Library or The Green Pavilion)

Link to Frogmore House' wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frogmore_House

I do think The Telegraph were trying to publish as many online articles/columns as possible on Saturday morning in response to Extinction Rebellion's protest on News printing plants. By speeding through the publishing process, there is going to be mistakes, which was picked up in this particular article (Thank you RJC for your close catch. I did not realise it!! ). Today, I have read three articles on Harry and Meghan (all for free until this weekend ends).

 

[Dalriada]

“These sorts of sums are out of the reach of the vast majority of people in this country who have been trying to make ends meet during the coronavirus crisis.”
Who can argue with that? These brats need reining in.

 

[tommy100]

I certainly think if they are earning anywhere near the money suggested they shouldn’t be taking decades to pay back the Crown Estate. Why should they be able to milk their royal links for their own profit but the public purse is the one who has to miss out?

 

[Denville]

I certainly think if they are earning anywhere near the money suggested they shouldn’t be taking decades to pay back the Crown Estate. Why should they be able to milk their royal links for their own profit but the public purse is the one who has to miss out?

Are they "earning" the money yet? Is Netflix handing over a HUGE sum of money, for as yet nothing? WOnt it depend on their actually doing some work for the company, producing documentaries? (that said, I would say they should have paid off their debt on Frogmore asap)

 

[tommy100]

Absolutely, I doubt they are earning anything like the amounts reported, but will they come out and say that... i suspect not as image is important to them. More likely they will earn a fraction of the millions Netflix invests in them, just as any production company does. But the reports of the deal added with their new house suggests their lowest priority for their money is the public finances of the UK. Personally I’d pay if off and have one less thing for the media to beat me over the head with and to show respect to the UK.

On a side note- still no annual financial reports for the Household yet?

 

[Denville]

Absolutely, I doubt they are earning anything like the amounts reported, but will they come out and say that... i suspect not as image is important to them. More likely they will earn a fraction of the millions Netflix invests in them, just as any production company does. But the reports of the deal added with their new house suggests their lowest priority for their money is the public finances of the UK. Personally I’d pay if off and have one less thing for the media to beat me over the head with and to show respect to the UK.

On a side note- still no annual financial reports for the Household yet?

Yeah Im sure you're right. I suppose they may have gotten an advance of some kind but they wont be earning properly until they start coming up with ideas and put them into practice. And with Corona still around, making movies and docs may not be that easy to do in large quantities. I think you are right in that they don't care now if the UK is annoyed with them over the monies that were spent on them.. and that they wont exactly hurry to pay it all back. To be honest, ot keep up their lifestyle, pay their mortgage etc, they probably NEED to get on the work horse asap and start EARNING large sums...

 

[AC21091968]

“These sorts of sums are out of the reach of the vast majority of people in this country who have been trying to make ends meet during the coronavirus crisis.”
Who can argue with that? These brats need reining in.

I agree with Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and Bim Afolami on Harry and Meghan paying back the £2.4 million taxpayer founded bill at a faster rate.

I think this is a warning bell for them, because (as I mentioned in the previous post) it is very rare for Conservative MPs to raise question on royal finances and wealth. Unlike some Labour, Lib Dem or Green MPs, they are mostly staunch monarchists and will most likely defend the royal family.

If anyone is interested in politician views of royal wealth and finances, here is a 11 minute clip in the House of Commons from 2011 (in Cameron-Clegg/Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition). The video mainly feature Jacob Rees-Mogg, who at the time of this video was a backbencher. He is now Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Council.

I don't think the Prime Minister, Mr. Rees-Mogg and other Cabinet Ministers (or Secretary of States) in private are supportive of Harry and Meghan (in terms of providing securities or other finances). I said "in private", because they haven't publicly stated these matters.

 

[Osipi]

So we've learned that the Sussexes and Netflix have struck a multi million deal. What we don't know is the terms of the contract. So what happens next? I seriously doubt H&M have received a huge check to just deposit in their bank account to do whatever with (payback Frogmore for one).

IF they did receive money up front from this deal, most likely, as producers, a lot of that is going to be put into the funding of whatever it is that they'll produce. Unless they film at their home and its just them in the documentary, they are going to have costs. A good idea is that the next time you watch a documentary, pay attention to the credits at the end. All those people do not work for free. Who funds the documentary? The producers.

So thinking that H&M just pocketed a big lump sum of green dollars to do whatever they want with is kind of naive. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Denville]

They are not going to say anything in public. However I think that nobody expects the pair to return to the uk or take up royal life again (Unless they really fail in US and come home.. )
So, I suspect that the conservative minded PTB don't see them as royals any more and just are expecting them to slip away form the RF and the UK and make their own lives...

 

[Denville]

So we've learned that the Sussexes and Netflix have struck a multi million deal. What we don't know is the terms of the contract. So what happens next? I seriously doubt H&M have received a huge check to just deposit in their bank account to do whatever with (payback Frogmore for one).

IF they did receive money up front from this deal, most likely, as producers, a lot of that is going to be put into the funding of whatever it is that they'll produce. Unless they film at their home and its just them in the documentary, they are going to have costs. A good idea is that the next time you watch a documentary, pay attention to the credits at the end. All those people do not work for free. Who funds the documentary? The producers.

So thinking that H&M just pocketed a big lump sum of green dollars to do whatever they want with is kind of naive. It doesn't work that way.

Is it naïve to think if you have debts you pay them? Some would say "pay them first and then you can do what you like with the money you have left

 

[Osipi]

As far as Frogrmore Cottage is concerned, most likely an agreement has already been made as to the terms of repayment. That's all they have to stick to.

 

[Denville]

As far as Frogrmore Cottage is concerned, most likely an agreement has already been made as to the terms of repayment. That's all they have to stick to.

I don't think that its particularly admirable that they have probably made some deal on repayment.. Times are very hard in the UK, and will be for some time. They have a lot of money compared with the average person here and the least they could have done IMO was to settle that particular debt first...

 

[Mbruno]

I agree with Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and Bim Afolami on Harry and Meghan paying back the £2.4 million taxpayer founded bill at a faster rate.

I think this is a warning bell for them, because (as I mentioned in the previous post) it is very rare for Conservative MPs to raise question on royal finances and wealth. Unlike some Labour, Lib Dem or Green MPs, they are mostly staunch monarchists and will most likely defend the royal family.

If anyone is interested in politician views of royal wealth and finances, here is a 11 minute clip in the House of Commons from 2011 (in Cameron-Clegg/Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition). The video mainly feature Jacob Rees-Mogg, who at the time of this video was a backbencher. He is now Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Council.

I don't think the Prime Minister, Mr. Rees-Mogg and other Cabinet Ministers (or Secretary of States) in private are supportive of Harry and Meghan (in terms of providing securities or other finances). I said "in private", because they haven't publicly stated these matters.

What Mr. Rees-Mogg was saying (in his incredibly posh accent) is that the Crown Estate is "owned " by the Sovereign (or rather, more precisely, held in trust by the Sovereign for the duration of his/her reign). It is not owned by the State then, although, since 1760, sovereigns have agreed, at the beginning of each reign, to surrender the Crown Estate revenue to the British Treasury in exchange for a civil list, replaced now by the Sovereign Grant, which is a fixed percentage of the surplus revenue of the Crown Estate.

Mr. Rees-Mogg's point then is that the Queen is entitled to "ask for money" (i.e. receive the Sovereign Grant) as compensation for voluntarily surrendering what would otherwise be her private money (the Crown Estate revenue) to the government, and she doesn't have to pay anything back, although she now voluntarily pays income tax.

Whether that also applied to Harry and Meghan or not when they were still working royals is a different matter.

EDIT: There is another side to the story, however, that Mr. Rees-Mogg conveniently failed to mention. King George III surrendered the Crown Estate revenue to the Treasure not only in exchange for the Civil List, but also, I believe, in exchange for the government taking up responsibility for repaying the public debt and paying for the civil and diplomatic service and the military out of general taxation. Remember that, since the revolution of 1688, the King could not impose taxes or indeed appropriate money from the Treasury unless authorized by an act of Parliament (i.e. Parliament had control over public revenue).

 

[Osipi]

Still, a deal is a deal. Both parties agreed to the terms. Harry and Meghan repaying the Sovereign Grant for the renovations to Frogmore Cottage isn't going to put food on the table for British citizens or ease the economic crisis one bit.

I could win millions in the lottery tomorrow but my home loan and my car loan wouldn't change or instantly called to be paid in full because I have more money. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Denville]

Still, a deal is a deal. Both parties agreed to the terms. Harry and Meghan repaying the Sovereign Grant for the renovations to Frogmore Cottage isn't going to put food on the table for British citizens or ease the economic crisis one bit.

I could win millions in the lottery tomorrow but my home loan and my car loan wouldn't change or instantly called to be paid in full because I have more money. It doesn't work that way.

That's not the pont. The money paid for the renovation was as far as I know taxpayers money. It wasn't a loan to H and M from a bank.. Harry and Meghan said they'd pay it back.. they have what is a massive fortune by most people's standards and could have paid it back clear and free before they embarked on their new life in the US....

 

[Mbruno]

That's not the pont. The money paid for the renovation was as far as I know taxpayers money. It wasn't a loan to H and M from a bank.. Harry and Meghan said they'd pay it back.. they have what is a massive fortune by most people's standards and could have paid it back clear and free before they embarked on their new life in the US....

It depends on where the money for the renovation came from. If it came from the Sovereign Grant, I would argue it is not "taxpayer's money", but rather the Queen's money as Mr. Rees-Mogg argued in the clip above. Whether the Queen's money should be used to pay for her grandson's house's renovation is, as I said, a different discussion, but I don't see an obligation to pay anything back. And I am not a Harry or Meghan's supporter/ fan as everybody here knows.


If, on the other hand, the renovation was paid directly by the Crown Estate (and not by the Queen out of her grant), then I think a payback might be due since that is money which would otherwise have gone to the Treasury (i.e. would have become public revenue).

 

[Denville]

It depends on where the money for the renovation came from. If it came from the Sovereign Grant, I would argue it is not "taxpayer's money", but rather the Queen's money as Mr. Rees-Mogg argued in the clip above. Whether the Queen's money should be used to pay for her grandson's house's renovation is, as I said, a different discussion, but I don't see an obligation to pay anything back. And I am not a Harry or Meghan's supporter/ fan as everybody here knows.


If, on the other hand, the renovation was paid directly by the Crown Estate (and not by the Queen out of her grant), then I think a payback might be due.

Clearly it was felt that it should be paid back.. since an arrangement was made to do so..

 

[Osipi]

Its amazing how people jump on what H&M should do with the money they're reputed to be getting through a deal with Netflix. This deal isn't Harry and Meghan's *personal* money coming in. Its their production company's and will be used to fund and finance the programming they want to produce with Netflix having the streaming rights.

"Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have launched a production company, which will be based at Netflix. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have signed a multi-year deal with the streaming giant for scripted series, docuseries, documentaries, features and children's programming, Deadline has confirmed."

No where is it hinted that the Sussex bank account is going to be overflowing with green dollars and, hence, can afford to just cut a check for the repayment of renovations to Frogmore Cottage at this time.

Harry and Meghan's production company (which is a commercial business in and of itself) has absolutely nothing to do with Harry and Meghan's private financial status.

 

[Curryong]

Although the BBC report below refers to 'taxpayer funds' it makes clear that the renovation of Frogmore Cottage was paid for from Sovereign Grant moneys.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48746609

 

[Denville]

Its amazing how people jump on what H&M should do with the money they're reputed to be getting through a deal with Netflix. This deal isn't Harry and Meghan's *personal* money coming in. Its their production company's and will be used to fund and finance the programming they want to produce with Netflix having the streaming rights.

"Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have launched a production company, which will be based at Netflix. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have signed a multi-year deal with the streaming giant for scripted series, docuseries, documentaries, features and children's programming, Deadline has confirmed."

No where is it hinted that the Sussex bank account is going to be overflowing with green dollars and, hence, can afford to just cut a check for the repayment of renovations to Frogmore Cottage at this time.

Harry and Meghan's production company (which is a commercial business in and of itself) has absolutely nothing to do with Harry and Meghan's private financial status.

so why are they dong this job if they don't expect their bank account to be "overflowing with green dollars" in due course. They are doing this to make money and they will need to as they have an expensive lifestyle. And as you know they have a private fortune, so could have cleared the money in the UK before their move to Canada or the USA.

 

[Curryong]

The couple have made arrangements to pay off the Sovereign Grant money on Frogmore Cottage in instalments, and they did so before they left England. If that wasn't acceptable to the Royal Household then they should have objected at the time. They didn't so apparently these arrangements were satisfactory.

 

[Durham]

Rees Mogg states that the crown estate is the property of the sovereign in an ultimate sense but doesn’t actually prove his point.

He says that the monarch is like any other landowner with regard to the crown estate. He states that the crown estate can be passed from generation to generation because the monarch owns that property outright. This is not correct because parliament can alter the line of succession. The next monarch can be, like George I, a distant relative of the previous one or indeed not related at all.

He just asserts that, like ancient feudal duties, the obligations of the crown estate to pay for certain government expenditure, would have just fallen away over time. He believes therefore that if the monarch did not surrender the crown estate they would have the profits & none of the historical obligations. This contention is used to support his eccentric opinion that somehow the monarch is doing us a favour by being so generous at the start of each reign. The truth is somewhat different.

If the monarch did not surrender the crown estate they would be responsible for paying for much of the government. Tens of billions in today’s terms. So Rees Mogg’s claims are a fantasy.

He obfuscates when another MP points out that there is a distinction to be drawn between the monarchy as an institution & the monarch as an individual.

He quotes Charles I, of all people, as an example of someone who had defended the liberties of the people! A man who ruled without parliament for over a decade.

It would be interesting to know who he thinks the crown estate would belong to if Britain became a republic. Rees Mogg has the confidence & articulacy typical of his class & education but there is a lack of substance to his arguement.

 

[tommy100]

Whether or not they should pay back is rather a moot point IMO as they have agreed to pay it back. There is a point in saying if they are making millions why are they still only going to pay back so little each year.

This goes back to - they could come out and make a point that their production company will be making programmes for Netflix with the streaming service spending up to $150million on their programmes....the couple's company has to fund the making of the programmes which is expensive....any profits at the end of it all will go to the company and some may then go to H&M. They may of course also take a salary, even a hefty salary, but I can't see them earning all that much from this really and production of new ideas can take years. Why they don't just make a point of saying this I don't know....unless they want to be seen as so successful and so rich....

 

[Mbruno]

It would be interesting to know who he thinks the crown estate would belong to if Britain became a republic. Rees Mogg has the confidence & articulacy typical of his class & education but there is a lack of substance to his arguement.

Based on his reasoning, I suppose he would answer that, if Britain became a republic tomorrow, the Crown Estate would revert to being the personal property of Mrs Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor.


Interestingly, as you have pointed out though, if Parliament changed the line of succession, as it did in 1701 when it picked the 54th in line (or something like that) to succeed, the Crown Estate would still be held in trust (for the duration of his reign) by whoever was chosen to be the next King, who might not be a descendant of Elizabeth II.


Therefore I also disagree with his claim that the Crown Estate is owned personally by the Queen. But I agree with him that the Queen is entitled to receive compensation for surrendering the Estate's revenue (and management) to public bodies. That is where you disagree, I think.

 

[Durham]

Based on his reasoning, I suppose he would answer that, if Britain became a republic tomorrow, the Crown Estate would revert to being the personal property of Mrs Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor.


Interestingly, as you have pointed out though, if Parliament changed the line of succession, as it did in 1701 when it picked the 54th in line (or something like that) to succeed, the Crown Estate would still be held in trust (for the duration of his reign) by whoever was chosen to be the next King, who might not be a descendant of Elizabeth II.


Therefore I also disagree with his claim that the Crown Estate is owned personally by the Queen. But I agree with him that the Queen is entitled to receive compensation for surrendering the Estate's revenue (and management) to public bodies. That is where you disagree, I think.

Yes I can only assume that he would. Which is patently absurd. The same goes for the two duchies in any hypothetical republic.

Indeed. In fact the monarch does not have to be a descendant of any previous monarch. It is possible, if unlikely, since I'm not sure how such a scenario would happen. Were the Bernadottes of royal Swedish descent?

Clearly the monarch needs an income & I guess the present system is as good as any. I suppose I bristle at the word compensation. As though they're doing us a favour. After all the crown estate is just the remainder of land seized at the conquest of England by a foreign power. Even it is was a long time ago!

It would be useful to know how other monarchies are funded I think.

 

[Denville]

Whether or not they should pay back is rather a moot point IMO as they have agreed to pay it back. There is a point in saying if they are making millions why are they still only going to pay back so little each year.

This goes back to - they could come out and make a point that their production company will be making programmes for Netflix with the streaming service spending up to $150million on their programmes....the couple's company has to fund the making of the programmes which is expensive....any profits at the end of it all will go to the company and some may then go to H&M. They may of course also take a salary, even a hefty salary, but I can't see them earning all that much from this really and production of new ideas can take years. Why they don't just make a point of saying this I don't know....unless they want to be seen as so successful and so rich....

I am not sure they'll do all that well from this deal. It depends on how well their ideas go.. and I don't think people really want to be preached at so..
but re the Frogmore debt, I mean honestly, if the RF /PTB didn't think that the money needed to be paid back, do you think that Meg and H would pay it back? Clearly it was felt that it DID need to be paid back and they had to agree to do it....

 

[Osipi]

From the onset of the desire to "go their own way", one important thing was stressed and that was that they'd no longer receive funds from the Sovereign Grant. As the renovations to Frogmore Cottage were paid by the Sovereign Grant, it stands to reason that they would reimburse those funds.

They came to an agreement and as far as I know, they haven't reneged on the deal made as far as reimbursing the funds. So, where's the beef? ?