Royal Wealth and Finances 1: Ending 2022

[Claire]

It just saddens me that while others are budgeting and scapping to get by others are constantly on holiday, and throwing drinking parties for friends.

 

[tommy1716]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...en-12th-in-Forbes-list-of-richest-royals.html

I always end up wondering how true articles like this actually are, i guess we will never know, which is how it should be.

 

[Russophile]

I don't think, because she IS HM, that EVERYTHING is recorded. But then again, how many of the gazillionaires on that list have EVERYTHING recorded? I'm sure they have assets spread out all over the place. . .

 

[Warren]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...st-royals.html

Excerpts from tommy1716's link (keeping in mind the figure is a guesstimate):

With an estimated fortune of £349 million, the monarch has even slipped one position to 12th place in the chart compiled by the US magazine Forbes.

The true value of the Queen's private property, which includes Balmoral, Sandringham, a smaller collection of jewellery and some paintings has never been disclosed. She also derives a personal income of around £12.5million a year from the Duchy of Lancaster.

But a spokeswoman for Buckingham Palace insisted last night: "The Queen's personal wealth has always been vastly exaggerated."

 

[branchg]

The Crown Estate belongs to The Sovereign in right of the Crown. At the beginning of each new reign, The Sovereign formally surrenders all revenues from the Estate in return for a Civil List from Parliament to reimburse certain expenses. It is inseparable from the State, with Parliament as custodian and beneficiary on behalf of the taxpayers.

Even if the monarchy was abolished and Britain became a republic, the Crown Estate would remain with the State. The arrangement was made to release the Crown from being personally responsible for the expenses of the State, which today would far exceed the revenues produced by the Crown assets. In a way, it is the contribution of The Sovereign to the cost of maintaining a Government, national defense, healthcare, etc.

The Queen's personal investments are estimated at $100-150 million, not including her jewels, her artwork, Balmoral and Sandringham. Given the considerable expenses she pays for the entire royal family (approximately $8 million annually), it's not that much money when you consider it has to last for generations. The Duchy of Lancaster generates about $10 million, which after taxes is another $6 million in her pocket. This too is mostly gone for staff expenses, pensions, upkeep, etc.

 

[COUNTESS]

We will take up a collection for her. Perhaps, some of her pensioners who live on meager amounts will feel the pangs of empathy. Please. They are wealthy beyond measure. They never have to worry about where there next buck (pound) is coming from. There are many who labor much harder for far less.

 

[Russophile]

We will take up a collection for her. Perhaps, some of her pensioners who live on meager amounts will feel the pangs of empathy. Please. They are wealthy beyond measure. They never have to worry about where there next buck (pound) is coming from. There are many who labor much harder for far less.

I think branch was just being matter of fact on the state of HM's finances. She's had a life of service and what's been expected of her has been planned since her birth. She's been constantly in the public eye with her every move photographed for posterities sake. I don't know if I could make that sort of sacrifice no matter the wealth.

 

[Skydragon]

The Queen's official London residence was estimated to be worth £935 million by home valuation site Zoopla.co.uk, making it the UK's most expensive family property.
But the price tag is hardly surprising when you consider that the palace has 775 rooms, including 19 State rooms, 52 Royal and guest bedrooms, 188 staff bedrooms, 92 offices and 78 bathrooms.

Buckingham Palace valued at close to £1 billion - Telegraph

 

[muriel]

That she receives from the state.

Sky - I am not sure I agree with your comment. From memory, Andrew's funding is what is a referreed to as a re-imbursement of civil list payments by the Queen. The payments are made by the Queen from her private income, which I am guessing is from the Duchy of Lancaster or other private sources. IMO, this is the same pot of money that is, for example, used to subsidiise the rent on the flat at KP for the Kents. Again from memory, the only recipients of civil list payments are the Queen and the DoE.

 

[Skydragon]

Sky - I am not sure I agree with your comment. From memory, Andrew's funding is what is a referreed to as a re-imbursement of civil list payments by the Queen.The payments are made by the Queen from her private income, which I am guessing is from the Duchy of Lancaster or other private sources. IMO, this is the same pot of money that is, for example, used to subsidiise the rent on the flat at KP for the Kents. Again from memory, the only recipients of civil list payments are the Queen and the DoE.

It is the money HM receives from the civil list, that she can use to give Andrew his pocket money or pay for her relatives accommodation, not private income. She may give him even more from her private income.

The Queen has repaid to the Treasury the annual parliamentary allowances received by other members of the Royal Family

- from the amount she receives from the Civil List, otherwise why would she have received extra for Edwards wedding?

Apart from an increase of £45,000 on the occasion of The Earl of Wessex's marriage, these amounts remain as follows

From what I can see, whether it is the Privy Purse or the Civil List, the money ultimately comes from the state.

 

[muriel]

You may be better versed with the specifics, but in concept, as far as I understand it, is that the only two receiving Civil List payments (on a net basis) are the Queen and the DoE. Any payments received by others are re-imbursed. The Queens principal sources of income are the Civil List, the Duchy of Lancaster and her private wealth outside of all of this. My thinking was that the Civil List payments (whch as we all know have been frozen for quite along time) broadly just about cover the costs of the business of monarchy. There is an obvious circularity (therefore making it pointless IMO) in your suggestion that the Queen uses her civil list payments to repay the Treasury the payments received by other members of the royal family.

 

[Skydragon]

They are indeed the only two in receipt of money from the civil list.

One way or another the state pays HM, who pays her children, otherwise there would be no mention of the amounts HM pays them in the official accounts. As you know HM's private wealth and accounts are not disclosed in said accounts.


So, IMO, if the payments are shown in the RF financial statement, they are ultimately derived from the state, no matter who arranges the transfer.

 

[Skydragon]

At the risk of not having the specifics to hand:----snipped----the state is subsisiding the existence of her children is a bit disingenous, and IMO, quite misleading.

I am surprised that you would suggest it is disingenuous, there is nothing insincere or calculating about it. I am not giving a false appearance of frankness and I have provided the link again, which is freely available for all to see. The official financial statements clearly include payments to HM's children, therefore the money they receive comes via HM, from the state. They may be annuities repaid by HM, but as HM's money comes from the state, ultimately it comes from us, not from HM's private, private income, if it was entirely a private matter, from private funds, the details would not be in the official statement presented to parliament...
The Monarchy Today > Royal finances > Financial arrangements of other members of the Royal Family

 

[kimebear]

Skydragon, maybe you could give us the link as to whether or not the state money to the queen was increased proportionately in 1993 when she started to pay the money back.

If her personal state funding was increased at that time in an amount equal to the funds that she now repays, there may be something to it. Otherwise, what HM does with her own income really should be her own business.

 

[Skydragon]

Skydragon, maybe you could give us the link as to whether or not the state money to the queen was increased proportionately in 1993 when she started to pay the money back.

I have given the link to the Royal Finances site, there is also a full and detailed PDF file available for those that wish to read it. The link shown gives all the necessary information,

In 2000 the annual amounts payable to members of the Royal Family (which are set every ten years) were reset at their 1990 levels for the next ten years, until December 2010.

IMO, this is a clear statement that members of the royal family receive payments from the state via HM.

what HM does with her own income really should be her own business.

Indeed, which IMO, proves the amounts shown must not be private money, but money that comes from the state.

 

[ada]

I am surprised that you would suggest it is disingenuous, there is nothing insincere or calculating about it. I am not giving a false appearance of frankness and I have provided the link again, which is freely available for all to see. The official financial statements clearly include payments to HM's children, therefore the money they receive comes via HM, from the state. They may be annuities repaid by HM, but as HM's money comes from the state, ultimately it comes from us, not from HM's private, private income, if it was entirely a private matter, from private funds, the details would not be in the official statement presented to parliament...
The Monarchy Today > Royal finances > Financial arrangements of other members of the Royal Family

This article gave me the impression that the Queen is repaying the government for all RF allowances except HM and D of E

 

[kimebear]

I have given the link to the Royal Finances site, there is also a full and detailed PDF file available for those that wish to read it. The link shown gives all the necessary information,IMO, this is a clear statement that members of the royal family receive payments from the state via HM.Indeed, which IMO, proves the amounts shown must not be private money, but money that comes from the state.

I have read the information at the site. It doesn't give the information for the civil list of 1993, which is when the Queen started to reimburse the payment for Andrew et al. IMO, if you want to make the argument that Andrew is completely funded by the taxpayer, it is critical to ascertain that the reimbursement started at a time when the Queen's was increased at an equal amount by the government. I don't see that anywhere. I did find this:

"The Duchy's main purpose is to provide an independent source of income for the Sovereign as Duke of Lancaster. This money is mainly used to defray official expenditure not historically met by the Civil List.


The Queen uses a large part of it to meet official expenses incurred by other members of the Royal Family. Only The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh receive payments from Parliament which are not reimbursed by The Queen."

and also:

Most of the allowances received by members of the Royal Family are spent on staff who support their public engagements and correspondence.

Which sounds to me like that is what the civil list reimbursements go towards. On another website altogether I found this which is the parliamentary discussion of the new taxation on the Queen and the Civil List reimbursement for the first time:

House of Commons Hansard Debates for 11 Feb 1993

Which quotes:

"With regard to the expenses which may be set against that income, can the Prime Minister say what they might be in general terms? Is my understanding correct that the Queen may set against liability to tax arising from the privy purse the payments which she makes to the Consolidated Fund to reimburse payments made to other members of the royal family? "

As this was determined to be accurate, I think the most that can be said is that the Queen is allowed to use the reimbursement amount against the taxes she pays on her own income. As noted in the same publication:

"The new arrangements will ensure that, so far as possible, the Queen will pay tax on her personal income according to the normal tax rules and will herself take responsibility for the Civil List payments to almost all other members of the royal family".

Amusingly enough was also this quote:

"May I ask the Prime Minister to do his best to ensure that those members of the royal family who are now dropped from the Civil List will be accorded the degree of privacy which would be enjoyed by the nephew of any newspaper editor?
Hon. Members : Hear, hear."

We see how well that worked out for them.

So forgive me, but it seems that crying "taxpayer funded" in this case is a bit excessive.

 

[Skydragon]

This article gave me the impression that the Queen is repaying the government for all RF allowances except HM and D of E

I think the problem here is that I believe ALL of HM's public money ultimately comes from the state. The amount agreed in 1993 was increased to reflect that the rest of the royals no longer received direct payments from the state. They would still receive payments but HM would repay the amount out of the money she receives from the Privy Purse, hence the reimburse. It is a Smoke and Mirrors manouver.
We only see the accounts that concern money from the state, (HM's private accounts and investments are on the whole unknown and never disclosed.) therefore the monies shown cover the cleaners, the cooks and other members of the Royal Family!

The Monarchy Today > Royal finances > Sources of funding > Personal wealth

This should be in the Royal Finances and then we could continue to discuss Andrews rather large double chin.

 

[kimebear]

No, I understood what you were saying. The problem for me is the issue of when the Queen's income becomes her own to dispose of as she chooses. It's a bit like saying that you, as an employer, have the right to a voice on what your employee gives their children for an allowance. IMO, once you agree on what your employee's salary is, that is the end of your imput as long as your employee herself is doing a good job.

I have looked for information on the civil list that would show a proportionate increase from 1992 - 1993, which is really the time period in question and I have not found anything that would substantiate the claim that her income was increased to defray the new reimbursements. Since you apparantly have proof of this claim, perhaps you could point me in the right direction.

 

[Skydragon]

I have looked for information on the civil list that would show a proportionate increase from 1992 - 1993, which is really the time period in question and I have not found anything that would substantiate the claim that her income was increased to defray the new reimbursements. Since you apparantly have proof of this claim, perhaps you could point me in the right direction.

As I am sure you know, before 1993, the accounts seem to have been some kind of dark secret.
Mr. Portillo [holding answer 15 May 1992] : In accordance with the Civil List (Increase of Financial Provision) Order 1990--SI 1990/2018--Her Majesty the Queen receives £7.9 million each calendar year for her civil list. House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 May 1992
------------------
As I said, it is all smoke and mirrors, HM may seem as if she is repaying the amount from her private income but......

 

[kimebear]

Actually, I didn't know. At the time in question, I was a barely out of my teens American.

It says that the Civil list paid the Queen 7.9m in 1990/91/92. In 2006, 13 years after the new agreement, she was receiving 8.1m. This does not seem like a proportional increase to me. Just some simple math taking into account the new tax benefit she would receive:

Civil list before 1993 7,900,000
Civil list after 1993 8,100,000

increase + 200,000

New reimbursements 1,254,000
(1,054,000)
+ new tax benefits est. 536,000

Cost to the Queen 519,254

I'm not trying to nitpick, but it still seems that she coming out behind from what she used to receive. My question still stands though. At what point is she entitled to disperse her own income as she sees fit?

 

[Skydragon]

Actually, I didn't know. At the time in question, I was a barely out of my teens American.... snipped....I'm not trying to nitpick, but it still seems that she coming out behind from what she used to receive.

Ah, a mere babe. I don't believe she is, as with Andrews allowance I believe the cost is being defrayed. All monies in and out were carefully juggled, IMO, to give the appearance of only a small yearly increase

My question still stands though. At what point is she entitled to disperse her own income as she sees fit?

If it is indeed coming from her own earnings or investments, fine, but I find it hard to believe that HM still pays her children pocket money (an allowance) at their ages!

 

[kimebear]

If it is indeed coming from her own earnings or investments, fine, but I find it hard to believe that HM still pays her children pocket money (an allowance) at their ages!

Ah, and there is the rub. Since we will probably never know for sure how exactly it is calculated, we will just have to agree to disagree. One thing is for sure. I will not be paying an allowance to my children at that age!

 

[rmay286]

So, I am trying to see if I have this straight. The monies from the Crown Estate are surrendered by the monarch to the State, and in return, the State pays for the monarch's "working" expenses. Taxpayer money enters the picture, then, because citizens pay taxes to the State? What about the Duchy of Lancaster? Isn't this technically the queen's property and not the State's?

I'm sorry if I'm asking questions that have been answered elsewhere in this thread or are obvious to others: I'm not good at understanding finances in the first place and this is all foreign to me (literally, since I don't live in Britain!). It seems like it's being argued here that the State funds all the activities of all the royals. Don't they have any income that can be called "their own", through inherited properties (for example, the Duchy of Cornwall in Charles' case?) Because according to Wikipedia (and no, I know Wikipedia isn't always considered the most credible source, but it was the easiest way I could find answers to my questions!):

The Privy Purse is the Sovereign's remaining private income, mostly from the Duchy of Lancaster. While the income is private, the Queen uses the larger part of it to meet official expenses incurred by other members of the British Royal Family. Only the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh receive payments from Parliament which are not reimbursed by the Queen.

I bolded "private" because I'm confused as to how money from the Privy Purse, if it's private, can then be considered taxpayer funded money? I keep reading on the Prince Andrew thread that whenever the Queen pays him, it's taxpayer money, yet information on the web seems to suggest that the Queen pays the lesser royals out of the Privy Purse, and the Privy Purse contains monies from the Duchy of Lancaster which are not annually surrendered to the State (unlike the monies from the Crown Estate) and are thus private...

 

[Skydragon]

I keep reading on the Prince Andrew thread that whenever the Queen pays him, it's taxpayer money, yet information on the web seems to suggest that the Queen pays the lesser royals out of the Privy Purse, and the Privy Purse contains monies from the Duchy of Lancaster which are not annually surrendered to the State (unlike the monies from the Crown Estate) and are thus private...

As I said, smoke and mirrors. Every man, woman and child in the UK pays 66p each to support one of the richest families in the country. That leads to the question is it every taxpaying man, woman and child or every man, woman and child, because if it is the latter, each taxpayer is paying more than 66p each.

The Queen and the Royal Family have cost the taxpayer £40m during the last financial year - up £2m on the previous 12 months, official accounts show.

BBC NEWS | UK | Royals 'cost the taxpayer £40m'

So unless palace officials have got it wrong, the taxpayer funds the royal family. Add to that the Agricultural Grants and Allowances that HM and Charles claim, the expenses they all able to claim as 'official', the massive tax breaks, non payment of inheritance taxes, non payment of the Community Charge etc and anyone can surely see that the UK taxpayer does indeed pay HM to pay Andrew.

What HM appeared to give back, was IMO, taken in other ways, so that HM was not out of pocket.

 

[muriel]

..... unless you start to go back to the origins of the Civil List. I have no doubt that the surplus from the Crown Estate is a lot more than the Civil List, so the true cost would, IMO, be £40m less the annual surplus from the Crown Estate... which may be a negative number (or read differently, a surplus!).

I think people need to a bit careful between stating facts and presenting their own views - can be quite dangerous if you are trading on imperfect information!

 

[Skydragon]

.---snipped---- I think people need to a bit careful between stating facts and presenting their own views - can be quite dangerous if you are trading on imperfect information!

If we knew the full extent of allowances and tax breaks, the UK public might be horrified to learn just how much more they do pay to one of the richest families.

I have, IMO, clearly stated my sources and in this instant bolded so no confusion should ensue. All of the 'evidence' I have presented is available either on line or in person at the relevant departments in London.

Unless you are able to offer the same checkability, IMO, it is dishonest to try to suggest the figures released by palace officials, the beeb and HMGOV is 'imperfect', as for your 'can be quite dangerous', to whom is this, IMO, threat directed?

 

[muriel]

I am not about to "audit" the numbers you have set out, or the sources they are drawn from. I have no doubt you have done a competent job, as royal finances come across a matter that is important to you. I don't have a detailed uinderstanding of royal finances, but do have a broad sense of some of the underlying principles.

The "original deal" between the monarchy and the Treasury was that the Crown would surrender the surplus of the Crown Estate in return for the Civil List - which is broadly designed to cover the "costs" of the monarchy, but not necessarily the "personal" costs of the monarch. The "private income" of the monarch is covered by the Duchy of Lancaster.

Two key observations:

1) The Civil List has been broadly static for quite a long time now, and the Royal Household have managed their expenses downward to take account of inflation etc over this period. You probably know the specifics around that better than I do.

2) Without having looked at the financial accounts of The Crown Estate (are they public documents?), I am reasonably confident that over time the surplus far exceeds the Civil List payments, and therefore, the true "net" cost of the monarchy should not be measured by the civil list payments, but the excess of the civil list payments over the contribution from the Crown Estates.

It is true that the monarchy "costs" c£40m a year - but that is not money that is going to line the coffers of the monarch and her family. That is used to cover the costs of the royal household and all the people employed for the monarch to carry out her public duties. It is absolutely true that abolishing the monarchy would save us this £40m a year, but think how much we could save by abolishing the Home Office, or the Deptt for Work and Pensions... or even paring back the armed forces considerably. Do we really need all of them?

I just think that when people complain about the cost of the monarchy, they need to present the facts in a balanced manner. It is easy to mix facts and ones own views, and that is where we end up in dangerous territory. A lot of people who read these pages are not as familiar with a number of the "royal" issues as you are, and are quite often happy to restate what they read as the gospel - and that is truely dangerous!!

 

[Warren]

According to Wiki the Crown Estate made a profit of £211 million in 2008 (Australian $495m, US$320m, Canadian $401m, Euro €253m)

The £40m in question would pay the operating costs of the Monarchy as a State Institution, eg staff costs, building maintenance, cleaning, communications, transportation, stationery, etc etc etc.

The Queen and the POW may well receive "agricultural grants and allowances" but I'm sure other wealthy landowners receive the same. I doubt that HM and the POW receive any of these standard governemnt grants that they are not entitled to.

As we know, HM pays tax on her private income and the POW pays a form of tax on his Duchy of Cornwall income. The non-payment of inheritance taxes only relates to Sovereign-to-Sovereign transfers, the most recent example being the estate of the late Queen Mother passing untaxed to her daughter The Queen. The bulk of this estate would have been physical assets (art works and especially jewellery).

HM would have two sources of private income: the money received from the Duchy of Lancaster and the income generated by whatever private investments she holds. The latter would only be known to HM, her financial advisers, her bankers and certain officials in the Tax office.

 

[Skydragon]

I It is easy to mix facts and ones own views, and that is where we end up in dangerous territory. A lot of people who read these pages are not as familiar with a number of the "royal" issues as you are, and are quite often happy to restate what they read as the gospel - and that is truely dangerous!!

The facts are available to everyone who has access to the internet I would have thought and as I have repeatedly provided links, anyone who chooses to read this thread.

Warren - yes many very wealthy landowners also claim all the allowances that their accountants can find, the difference being that the taxpayer does not pay their 'running costs', so whether they are 'entitled to them' remains questionable. The 40m is on top of the amount allowed for maintenance of the palaces!

The upkeep of Buckingham Palace, along with Windsor Castle, Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh and a number of other palaces, falls to the government as they are classed as occupied royal palaces, as opposed to the monarch's private homes at Balmoral and Sandringham. Officials insisted that the annual property budget of £14.5m, originally fixed in 1991, represented a 69% real-terms reduction over the period

These are 2007 figures.

Whether the QM's estate was made up of artworks, jewellery or any other non liquid assets is immaterial, as any other taxpaying (and non taxpaying) member of the public has no option but to pay inheritance tax on the value of the entire estate.

The civil list started way back in 1660, an ancient arrangement that bears revisiting. The agreement over The Crown Estate also needs to be looked at, with regard to taking the burden off the taxpayers of this country.

I just have to wonder exactly what British people get from this arrangement, forget the tourists, many would apparently come just to see the historic buildings, imagine the revenue from the Buck Palace Hotel!