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.
On one hand 66p a year is nothing, on the other hand one wonders why they dip in the taxpayers' pockets if they have all those fortunes.

And this is the niggle here. Those of us not endowed with a palace or two are feeling the pinch and struggling to make ends meet, it doesn't look good for the Royals to be spending more than usual.
 
That doesn't look very good for the Royals. Even more when the UN started questioning their position.
 
Quotes from the press release:

"The money provided by the taxpayer to enable The Queen to fulfil her role as Head of State is equivalent to 66 pence per person in the country. This is the annual cost, not the daily, weekly or monthly cost and is 3.1% lower in real terms than it was in 2001.

Expenditure on Royal Travel, which will vary from year to year, also increased in response to the number of overseas visits undertaken at the request of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and UK Trade & Investment.

Head of State Expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen to the Government of the revenue from the Crown Estate and other hereditary revenues. The Treasury's gross receipts in respect of the Crown Estate were £200 million in 2006-07."
 
I do not argue that they perform their official duties and the State should absorb their expenses for representing their respective countries. (This is not unique of course to the BRF.) However I wonder sometimes. The Royals and nobles amassed their fortunes by draining the resources of their countries and its possessions without paying any taxes of course. How did it come now that they expect their citizens to fund any part of their activities?
It is a purely rhetorical question since I do not pay a penny for any of them.
 
For my own intrest I've worked out that the Prime Minster's office and work costs 29pence per person. This is based on the following article in the Times in 2007 which placed the cost of running the PM's office at £17.8million. I think its worth looking at to get a sense of comparison in some way.

The Times article Blair seeks a butler as taxpayers' bill for running No 10 trebles - Times Online
 
Last edited:
I would have loved it if I could get my hands on some statistics to tell me how much politicians in the US are costing each person in this country......
 
Okay, I guess this needs to be explained again.

The Royal Family doesn't actually 'cost' the British taxpayer anything.

Back in the 18th century, it became clear that government spending--which came from the tresury of the Sovereign--was quickly outstripping what the sovereign could afford to spend. Accordingly, George gave the revenues from what is now known as the Crown Estate to the government, in return for payments (the Civil List) which supported the monarchy's official activities and expenditures.

This arrangement is renewed by convention at the Accession of every sovereign.

So: the Crown Estate is actually the property of the sovereign, but the revenues are turned over to the government, and Civil List (and Grant-in-Aid) payments are provided for the sovereign's official expenditures.

The Crown Estate turns over somewhere north of 100 million pounds annually, while the Civil List payments total around 20 million. Net cost to British taxpayers: zero.

For a starting point, I suggest reading the wiki page on the Civil List.
 
Well for the UK, using this article from the UK's Telegraph Cost of MPs' pay and expenses soars by £13m - Telegraph
I've worked out that in 2006 every person in the UK paid £2.16 to pay the costs of MPs' salaries and expenses.
On top of this one has to take into account the additional costs of MEP's and the cost of Welsh and Scottish AM's and MPs.
I know what id rather be paying for ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A request by the Queen for millions of pounds for repairs to Buckingham Palace has been turned down by ministers because of the soaring costs of the 2012 Olympic Games.

Queen refused government grant because of 2012 Olympic Games - Telegraph
----------------------
I don't think 66p is a huge amount of my tax going to support HM, I do object to payments to Andrew, who doesn't appear to earn it, IMO! :flowers:
----------------
It is worth reading the comments posted by taxpayers.:flowers:
Do we get value for money from the Royal family?
 
So: the Crown Estate is actually the property of the sovereign, but the revenues are turned over to the government, and Civil List (and Grant-in-Aid) payments are provided for the sovereign's official expenditures.

The Crown Estate turns over somewhere north of 100 million pounds annually, while the Civil List payments total around 20 million. Net cost to British taxpayers: zero.

The Crown Estate was only the property of the sovereign because the sovereign's ancestors had taken it from its previous owners, by "right of conquest" or other means. When William of Normandy defeated Harold in battle at Hastings and persuaded the witan to elect him king, he confiscated, for himself, the lands of all those who had fought against him and who were, therefore, in his eyes, guilty of treason. His acquisition of land did not occur all at once but eventually, with these confiscations and the introduction of the feudal system, William (before Hastings apparently known as William the Bastard:whistling:) became supreme landowner.
 
I fail to see the point. Manhattan is only the property of the USA because the natives were cheated out of it. At some point, all property is theft, so you kind of have to give up going on about it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The royal figures are shuffled about, so it looks cheap. There is plenty spent on pomp and circumstance, which come from the public coffers. The queen cried when the Britannia was retired, but she could well afford a yacht from her own pocket, yet she has never dipped in to buy one. When the public paid it was okay. The bigger issue than the land, is that that didn't pay taxes on any of their property real or monetary, until recently, which, of course, was the biggest "rip off". Even this soverign to soverign inhertiance, sloughs off any tax, from the people who can most afford it.
 
I do not know if I get off topic here but I remember reading that in contrast to the Queen Mum, the Duchess of Gloucester did not transfer her estate to her son while she was still alive, so he had to sell off some of his inheritance to pay off the tax man.
From what I know the only one who does not collect any civil list is the Prince of Wales who has the income from the Duchy of Cornwall. However I am not sure whether he pays any taxes on the income or not.
 
Even this soverign to soverign inhertiance, sloughs off any tax, from the people who can most afford it.

Actually, without tax-free sovereign-to-sovereign bequests, it's likely that it wouldn't be too long before the Royal Family was forced to sell off their properties. Death duties in the UK are astonishingly high, as you can see from how many aristocratic families have had to sell off their homes as soon as they inherit.

From what I know the only one who does not collect any civil list is the Prince of Wales who has the income from the Duchy of Cornwall. However I am not sure whether he pays any taxes on the income or not.

Actually, the only people who receive any payments from the Civil list are HM and Prince Philip. The few others who receive payments (Anne, e.g.) have their payments repaid to Parliament by the Queen from her own private funds.
 
The queen cried when the Britannia was retired, but she could well afford a yacht from her own pocket, yet she has never dipped in to buy one.

A yacht the size of Britannia would cost around 80 million pounds. Forbes estimates her net worth as being around 280 million pounds, and I doubt most of it is easily spendable, so I don't think she could easily afford one even if she did want to spend that much.

Okay, I guess this needs to be explained again.

The Royal Family doesn't actually 'cost' the British taxpayer anything.

The problem with that argument is that the Crown Estate is about as much the Queen's personal property as Buckingham Palace is. It's the property of Elizabeth the Sovereign, not Elizabeth the woman. In a republic, she wouldn't likely get either (as opposed to things like Balmoral, Sandringham, and the Duchy of Lancaster.)

How did it come now that they expect their citizens to fund any part of their activities?

At least for the Queen, since she is a constitutional monarch, many of her activities are done on the advice of the government. Since they're sending her out to places like Slovenia to do their bidding (it's not really that sinister), it makes sense that things like that should be paid for by the state.
 
Last edited:
I do not know if I get off topic here but I remember reading that in contrast to the Queen Mum, the Duchess of Gloucester did not transfer her estate to her son while she was still alive, so he had to sell off some of his inheritance to pay off the tax man.
From what I know the only one who does not collect any civil list is the Prince of Wales who has the income from the Duchy of Cornwall. However I am not sure whether he pays any taxes on the income or not.

He does pay tax on his income, although the only people at the moment who are paid by the Civil List are the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.

The Prince of Wales - Does The Prince of Wales pay tax?

The Duchess of Gloucester's case was somewhat different; I believe the tax was levied on the Duke's estate but was postponed until the death of his widow, which is why the present Duke had to pay the tax after his mother's death.
 
The Duchess of Gloucester's case was somewhat different; I believe the tax was levied on the Duke's estate but was postponed until the death of his widow, which is why the present Duke had to pay the tax after his mother's death.
It is worked the same way for all spouses, the unfortunate thing is that it normally falls to the children to pay the IT and it is not cheap! :flowers:
"if your estate passes to your husband, wife or civil partner and you are both domiciled in the UK there is no Inheritance Tax to pay even if it's above the £312,000 nil rate band"
Inheritance Tax : Directgov - Money, tax and benefits
----------------------
The Queen is said to be furious at being forced to live a 'patch and mend' existence as her palaces crumble around her

On one's uppers! Down to her last £320m, a Palace official complains that the Queen has to 'patch and mend' | Mail Online
 
The reason for allowing tax free inheritances from soverign to soverign is to ensure that the monarchy can have independant wealth of their own so they do not have to come to rely on the State more, remeber that the Royal Family, unlike some other European Royals do not recive personal allowances with which they can do with as they wish. If, for example, there were two or three new soverign one after the other in rapid succession then the wealth of the royal family would dissapear given the high inheritance tax levels in the UK. Its for this reason that many of Britains great country houses have been goven over to the National trust or made into hotels etc. Without soverign to soverign tax exemption the monarch would need a personal allowance from the state and Sandringham and Balmoral would have to be sold off.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This conversation is getting very very interesting. So I want to ask the informed ones this. Besides Sandringham Balmoral and Windsor Castle which other Palaces are owned by the Royal family? ( I believe Buckingham Palace belongs to the State rather the RF but I may be wrong) Which begs the next question if BP is owned by the State why does the Queen ask for funds to repair it. Wouldn't that be the responsibility of the State to maintain?
 
The Royal family themelves own Sandringham and Balmoral, thus these are thier private property. The State owns Buckingham Palace, St James' Palace, Kensington Palace, The Palace of Holyrood House and Clarance House. The Queen, as Monarch is custodian of these state owned buildings, every year she is given the Grant in Aid for the Maintenance of the occupied Royal Palaces. This is given to her by the Government (more specifically the Department for Culture, Media and Sport) in return for the Crown Estate revenue, along with the other Grant in Aids and the Civil List. This money is paid by the State to the Queen to be spent of the State owned properties. As the Queen does not own these properties there is no reason why she should pay from her own personal wealth to upkeep these buildings. Sandringham and Balmoral are maintained by personal funds not state funds.
This year the Queen has asked for more money to allow for the upkeep of these State owned properties, as there is a backlog of work which there has been no money to pay for, this work put on backlog is now siad to be estiamted at £32million. It is important to note that the Property grant in aid was set at its curent level of £15million a year in the early 1990's. It had come up for review this year or last but has been frozen for another 3 years despite the backlog of work.
The State does maintain the state owned buildings but more money is needed and thus the Queen is asking the state for the money to pay for the repairs of its buildings.
 
Thanks a million tommy. Who owns Windsor Castle and Osborne House?
I remember I read somewhere that the Queen opened Hampton Court for the wedding of CP Pavlos to MC but I somehow believe this is a totally public property rented out for events.
BTW since they opened BP to paying tourists what purse receives this income? I know that the cost of living in the UK is way too high and the strength of the British pound makes these amounts seem exhorbitant.
 
Windsor Castle is owned by the State in the same way Buckingham Palace is, and the £15million a year has to pay to maintain Windosr castle. Osborne House is owned by Englsih Heritage which is a charity that looks after many of Britains statley homes, Osborne is not owned by the State or the Royal family and so is not maintained by either.
Hampton Court is owned by Historic Royal Palaces a public owned body contracted by the State (more specifically the Department for Media, Sport and Culture) to look after and maintain historic royal palaces. This being said the Grant in Aid does pay for the Royal Mews at Hampton Court where i beleive some grace and favour residences are found.

Profits from entrance to BP do go (I believe) back into the palace upkeep, if not they go to the Royal COllection which used profits to maintain the state owned paintings and other art works in the occupied royal residences.

Historic Royal Palaces are former royal residences such as The Tower of London, Kew Palace and Hampton Court which though were once royal residences are no longer. These are open to the pulic which is how there maintanance is funded.

Occupied Royal Residences are those such as Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle and St James' which are still used by the royal family and royal household these are property of the state and maintained by the state through the Property Grant In Aid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem with that argument is that the Crown Estate is about as much the Queen's personal property as Buckingham Palace is. It's the property of Elizabeth the Sovereign, not Elizabeth the woman. In a republic, she wouldn't likely get either (as opposed to things like Balmoral, Sandringham, and the Duchy of Lancaster.)

That's a fundamental point on which you and I will have to agree to disagree. The Occupied Palaces and the Royal Collection are explicitly held in trust for the nation; the payment of the Crown Estate revenues is an arrangement held by convention--it's a specific contract. If (God forbid) a republic happened, EIIR would no longer receive Civil List monies, therefore invalidating the contract.
 
What should be worrying the government is the state of the palaces. No.10 is redecorated every time there is a new PM and yet BP state rooms haven't been done since before HM took the throne!:eek:

For ordinary citizens, their accommodation would be condemned if it still used asbestos and the wiring was last done in the '50's. The government are prepared to waste billions on the Millennium Dome (remember that) and now the Olympic Village Complex, but allow our heritage buildings to crumble!
------------------------------
Queen of mean
THE Queen has never had her homes decorated in more than 50 YEARS, it emerged yesterday

Amazing secrets in Royal accounts | The Sun |HomePage|News|Royals
 
Last edited:
I look with interest and a little smile at the dicussion about the costs of the British monarchy. 86 cent (66 pence) in one year for everyone in Britain...isn´t it right?

Our German head of state the ´Bundespräsident´( Horst Köhler at the moment) also lives in a castle in Berlin, he also travelles around the world to represent the country, but i can´t remember a dicussion here about the costs of the castle ( or other places he lives or he welcomes guests for state visits) or about the costs of his trips.

I don´t support waste of money or to be too extravagant, as a royal or as a president.
But 86 cent or 66 pence...i had no problems to pay that little tribute to my head of state ( and his family) when i know they are working hard and they are doing a good job to represent ´my´ country.:flowers:
 
I look with interest and a little smile at the dicussion about the costs of the British monarchy. 86 cent (66 pence) in one year for everyone in Britain...isn´t it right?

The monarchy doesn't actually cost the British taxpayer anything. The revenues that the Queen provides her government are far, far in excess of what it costs to run the monarchy.
 
The 66p is mentioned in the Buckingham Palace press release that Warren linked to a page or two ago, so I think we can take it as being correct.

ETA: Here's the link again

Media Centre > Press releases > Royal Public Finances annual report, 27 June 2008

I think we're all aware that the Crown Estate revenue is considerably larger than the amount of the Civil List and most of the other expenses of the monarchy. It doesn't come as any surprise to most of the people reading this thread that the Crown Estate exists, that there was an arrangement between George III and the government that the Crown lands would be administered by the government in return for a fixed payment by the government to the sovereign, and that the current value of the Crown Estate means that the revenue exceeds the amount of the Civil List. I would go so far as to suggest that the folk at Buckingham Palace are also aware of this. Yet they are the ones who are saying (see the above press release) that the monarchy costs 66p per taxpayer. If you really wish to take issue with this information, you might want to contact the Palace and see what they have to say.
 
Last edited:
Their reason for releasing that information is pure PR. It's much easier, when someone believes something that is untrue--e.g., the majority of the British public believing that they pay directly for the monarchy--to convince them that the untrue thing they believe is really not very bad. It is much, much harder to tell them "what you believe is wrong, here's the way it really is".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom