Royal Wealth and Finances 1: Ending 2022

[Skydragon]

Angry villagers have won a battle against the Royal estate which planned to turn their homes into a second 'model village'.
The Duchy of Lancaster, which helps fund the monarchy, drew up detailed plans to turn picturesque Cloughton in North Yorkshire into another Poundbury, Prince Charles' controversial building project in Dorset.

Read more: Royal Family lose battle with angry villagers to turn their home into 'another Poundbury' | Mail Online
​

 

[Emeralds and Opals]

Revealed: the royal waive which means no spending cuts for the Windsors | UK news | The Guardian

 

[Ukroyalist]

Revealed: the royal waive which means no spending cuts for the Windsors | UK news | The Guardian

Much gnashing of teeth by the Guardian!
I'm so pleased. As a UK resident and taxpayer I would happily pay more for the Royal family.

 

[Skydragon]

I believe you will soon be in the minority.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I believe you will soon be in the minority.

As it seems that the British people don't want to pay for a Head of State who gets the position through birth just when do you think Britain will become a Republic?

 

[Wisteria]

Skydragon.
how right you are. I think the BRF will have to cut down on needless spending and the quicker the better. For them I think it is a matter of survival.

 

[Skydragon]

As it seems that the British people don't want to pay for a Head of State who gets the position through birth just when do you think Britain will become a Republic?

The apparent sarcasm is misplaced and I have no idea if or when Britain might become a republic, I don't possess a crystal ball!

Unlike Australians, (or so one might believe from reading comments from Australians regarding the matter on these threads), I would suggest that the majority of people in the UK do not know what a Head of State is or does.

This is only my opinion from conversations with a wide range of native English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish people from a variety of backgrounds.

I have no wish to see the demise of the monarchy, I do believe they must be seen to manage the money they get, in a better way. Although their household staff may not be the best paid, I feel it is time for them to remove some of the managers, who pass the work required on to friends of friends, whose companies they know, rather than looking for competitive tenders. As it is, those that are asked to tender seem to think it is acceptable to add a couple of noughts to any quote.

 

[wbenson]

BBC News - Buckingham Palace urged to make funding letters public

Letters between Buckingham Palace and the government about funding for royal palaces should be made public, the Information Commissioner has said.

 

[wedmonds]

Well, certainly Diana and Sarah did not. It's not a usual requirement of marriage to a member of the royal family, but perhaps this will change in light of divorce becoming more common these days.

Also, most of the wealth in the royal family belongs to the Sovereign, followed by The Prince of Wales as they receive the income from the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. Everyone else is basically dependent on whatever money they may have inherited along the way, which usually is relatively modest.

William and Harry are very wealthy, but most of their inheritance came from The Queen's pocket when Diana received her divorce settlement.

Yes that is true, most of the wealth of that family is held by the monarch. And not the other members of the royal family. And even though the monarch may hold monies in her private capacity it is still protected from suit and someone trying to get it through divorce. A monarch is exempt from any type of legal jurisdiction. A monarch is always above the law. If Prince Philip divorced the Queen right at this moment. The Queen is protected against such things by law. He would only get what she wanted to give him. A judge could not MAKE her do anything. It is her government that the Prime Minister is the head of. They government can not make the Queen do anything. Prenuptial's and things of that nature aren't normally thought about when it comes to the sovereign. Although other members of the royal family can be sued at a time of divorce!

 

[wedmonds]

The Queen is privately pushing for taxpayers to contribute an extra £44 million to the Royal household to cover the cost of refurbishments, letters released by the Treasury have disclosed.

Queen wants extra £44m to refurbish palaces - Telegraph

I personally think that the Queen and the members of the royal family should be dethroned. For the simple fact that they get money for doing nothing. I would have NO PROBLEM doing hundreds of engagements over a years time and get paid large sums of money to do them. It is not that HARD. As some royalists like to put it. They are just defending this institution which has been draining the British tax payers dry.

People use that sorry excuse saying that, The Queen turns over revenue from the Crown Estate which doubles that of the civil list. So the tax payers are getting a good deal. When in reality the tax payers would be getting that money even if this were a republic. The Crown Estate belongs to that of the state. And not private property of the Queen. How can she turn over something that doesn't belong to her in the first place. What belongs to her is the Duchy of Lancaster. She doesn't own anything other than that, and people need to realize that. The Queen is siting there getting large sums of money when you can have a president that costs much less like in Germany. AND DON'T GIVE ME THAT PRESIDENTS COST MORE EXCUSE. I have went online and researched some republics that have cheap presidents unlike the U.S. Britain can have the same. They just need to get rid of that family.

Now I would be all for keeping the monarchy if she turned over money from her own wallet to cover the costs (Duchy of Lancaster). [WHICH I DOUBT SHE WILL EVER DO] Then I will be for keeping the monarchy. They need to pay for themselves.

Or do what the Zulu King is trying to do in South Africa. His government is starting a private trust for him. Which will cover his civil list (private expenses) and the cost of running the Zulu Kingdom (palaces and such not owned by the King) in the South African Republic. So the taxpayer will no longer have the burden. This is a concept the British should think about!

 

[Mermaid1962]

Actually, if the government enacted legislation declaring the UK a republic, the Queen would have to sign it. She's a constitutional monarch.

...It is her government that the Prime Minister is the head of. They government can not make the Queen do anything.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I

Now I would be all for keeping the monarchy if she turned over money from her own wallet to cover the costs (Duchy of Lancaster). [WHICH I DOUBT SHE WILL EVER DO] Then I will be for keeping the monarchy. They need to pay for themselves.

Why should anyone do a job like Head of State without having the costs of that position meet by the state of which he/she is head?

 

[wedmonds]

Why should anyone do a job like Head of State without having the costs of that position meet by the state of which he/she is head?

I think that they should pay for their own PRIVATE EXPENSES. The Birthday celebrations, parades for the Queen, anniversaries and things like that should be taken out of her pocket. If she doesn't want to pay for them, then there should not be any.

I live here in the U.S. and our president's only get a inauguration and a funeral. All of these jubilees and birthdays don't happen here. It costs us less.

Dinners and banquets to foreign heads of state for business deals of the government should be paid by the tax payer because it is for the good of the tax payer. But all of that other stuff NO!!!!!!!

Now, in Saudi Arabia or in Thailand you don't hear about the people complaining about the cost of the monarch? No, because those people pay for themselves. Those oil rich billionaires don't do as QEII, they pay for all of that luxury from PRIVATE funds that their families have held for years. Brunei is tax free. His family pays for itself. And the British need a monarch that will either do the same, or leave the throne. (My Opinion)

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think that they should pay for their own PRIVATE EXPENSES. The Birthday celebrations, parades for the Queen, anniversaries and things like that should be taken out of her pocket. If she doesn't want to pay for them, then there should not be any.

These celebrations etc are ones that bring in quite a lot of money as people actually plan to take holidays to London just for them. They are not PRIVATE EXPENSES as they are part of the duty of the monarchy to be seen and to honour the military - which is what the birthday parade does. The Colours are very important to British regiments and to have them presented by the monarch is significant so actually the birthday combines two things - a military role with a chance for the people to celebrate the birthday of the monarch. If the government didn't want to pay for them they could simply say no.

You seem to be suggesting that the Queen insists on the government paying for these when it is more the government insisting on these events happening as they know they are good for the British economy.

Having been in London for one such celebration I would say it was simply wonderful and I am glad that I planned by holiday to fit in with it and I wasn't alone. There were some in the crowd with me who had added an extra two days to a European vacation to see the Queen at this celebration - no celebration no extra days with the money that that brought into the British economy.

Who says that the Queen wants all these parades etc. They are part of her duty but the reports suggest that she wants a much lower key 60th jubilee (which an American President can't have as he can only have a maximum of 8 years and then out) than either the 25th or 50th.

You say it is cheaper to have only the inauguration and the funeral of the Presidents - I am not so sure.

There have been 10 presidents, so 10 inaugurations which take individual planning with the costs that that involves compared to 1 coronation, 2 jubilees and 57 birthday parades. The birthday parades are well planned and a military exercise so a lot of the costs are actually just the normal costs of running the army anyway and being every year don't take as much planning as they don't have to be done afresh every year.

You will have the funeral costs of 10 presidents compared to one queen and consort for this reign (two consorts if Philip dies before the Queen). The other royals are given private funerals. Diana's was a public funeral because that is what the public demanded. Of course if the Queen lives for another 20 years there could be another 5 presidential inaugurations and funerals to budget for compared to Britain.

How many presidents has America had in since 1901? Britain has had 5 monarchs so at most 10 funerals (including Elizabeth and Philip) - monarch and consort, plus the state funeral for Winston Churchill and Diana's funeral - seems a lot better to me than the number in the US.

 

[Zonk]

In addition to what Iluvbertie has mentioned, it should be noted that as an American not only do we pay for the current President and Vice President but we pay for the old ones as well. So right now we are paying retired government salaries and money allocated to the maintenance of their Presidential Libraries. They have to raise private money to initially fund and build the library, but the rest of the money comes from the US government. So that's Obama, Bush1 (and Cheney), Bush2 (and Quayle), Clinton (and Gore) and Carter (and Mondale). That includes life time secret service protection for them and their wives (although Bush2 only has it for ten years which I totally disagree with but that is the topic of another forum) as well as Lady Bird Johnson (who we have been paying for since 1968!) . And please note that I don't begrude paying for any of these men (and women) but these are the facts. I need to find the supporting information but I believe that equals what the British pay for the Queen. And not all of them are working on behalf of the American people doing 300 plus engagements a year.

It should also be noted that the money the British pay for The Royal Family goes mainly for the expenses that go with doing their "jobs." So a large portion of that money is allocated to salaries. Yes, some of that money (especially during these rough economic times) can be spent a little bit more wisely. Yes, I am talking about the transportation costs of some royals (i.e. Andrew and Charles).

Iluvbertie is totally right in mentioning that many people plan their vacations and weekends around these sort of events. And while the Queen will certainly hope that the 60th Jubillee will be low key, you can bet that a lot of peolple (and not just the British) will make it their business to partake in the festivities. Again, more tourist money for the British. And if William marries in the next year or two, I would imagine the same. And with total respect to the other monarchies in the world, and my own government, nobody NOBODY puts on a show like the British. All the evidence you need to see is exhibited in the funerals of Churchill, Diana and the Queen Mother. Presidents Reagan and Ford received a nice send off but it was nothing like the funeral of the three British or JFK.

ETA: There have been 20 US Presidents since 1901. Its a little late so my count might be off. It worth noting FDR had four terms (served 3 1/2 terms), and two Presidents died in office (McKinley and Kennedy). Since five Presidents are alive that means the US has paid for 15 state funerals.

 

[wedmonds]

Now, in Saudi Arabia or in Thailand you don't hear about the people complaining about the cost of the monarch? No, because those people pay for themselves. Those oil rich billionaires don't do as QEII, they pay for all of that luxury from PRIVATE funds that their families have held for years. Brunei is tax free. His family pays for itself. And the British need a monarch that will either do the same, or leave the throne. (My Opinion)

So why does the Sultan of Brunei get to have all of that lavishness and his people don't seem to mind. But when QEII does it, it is a big deal? (Explain to me)

 

[wedmonds]

How many presidents has America had in since 1901? Britain has had 5 monarchs so at most 10 funerals (including Elizabeth and Philip) - monarch and consort, plus the state funeral for Winston Churchill and Diana's funeral - seems a lot better to me than the number in the US.

Hey I have a question for you. In the Commonwealth Realms where the Queen is head of state doesn't the Prime Minister and Governor-Generals receive a state funerals when they die? Don't they get a retirement package with protection and all of that like U.S. presidents? I was just curious?

 

[Zonk]

So why does the Sultan of Brunei get to have all of that lavishness and his people don't seem to mind. But when QEII does it, it is a big deal? (Explain to me)

Well...you are making an apples to oranges comparison.

Brunei is an absolute monarchy, the media is pro government and if there is opposition...its never heard.

Britain is a democracy with a vocal public and press.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Hey I have a question for you. In the Commonwealth Realms where the Queen is head of state doesn't the Prime Minister and Governor-Generals receive a state funerals when they die? Don't they get a retirement package with protection and all of that like U.S. presidents? I was just curious?

I can only speak for Australia and yes they do - but they would do so regardless of being a republic or a monarchy - we will have more of them when we become a republic (of course until the early years of the Queen's reign we didn't have to worry about GGs as they were British and lived there after their term here).

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

In the United States, we also have state dinners, parades, commemoration of events such as Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, etc., Kennedy Center Honors, Presidential Medal recipient awards ceremonies, and so on, all paid for largely by the taxpayers. I think if it were left up to the Queen, she would probably keep a lower public life but that is not her role or duty. She is the Head of State and the government should cover the expenses for the public events of which she is a major part.

 

[wbenson]

Royals take taxis to official engagements as the Queen pulls rank on costs | Mail Online

Member of the Royal Family are using black taxis to travel to unofficial engagements instead of expensive fleet cars as the Queen tries to keep a lid on costs.

 

[muriel]

Good idea. I would also like to see the likes of Beatrice and Eugenie use the tube or the bus as well.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

I thought that Prince Phillip had his own black taxi for use in London.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I thought that Prince Phillip had his own black taxi for use in London.

I think the difference is that the idea is that if a royal has to get to an engagement, rather than using an expensive 'fleet' car they should ring up and hire a taxi.

Philip has owned a black taxi for many years.

That isn't the same as using a taxi and its driver for say 20 minutes to get from a to b.

 

[muriel]

Key areas we would like to see the BRF better manage their costs

It is often mentioned that the BRF is an expensive institution to maintain, and they are often criticised for their lifestyle. Given the current economic environment, I thought it would be interesting to hear the areas where members of TRF felt that the BRF could trim costs

 

[wbenson]

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Royals rake in £1m a year on holiday lets

The royals are raking in a staggering £1 million a year renting out holiday homes on their land.

The thrifty Queen makes more than £250,000 a year letting out cottages next to Balmoral Castle and Sandringham while savvy Prince Charles is banking around £800,000 annually from holiday homes on his vast Duchy of Cornwall estate.

 

[Warren]

I found this today by accident.
Interesting, but of course how would they know?
For the record and for whatever it's worth...

Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother 1900-2002: The Legacy: Charles to | Sunday Mirror Newspaper | Find Articles at BNET

The Queen Mother was worth an estimated £60 million - making her the third richest member of the Royal Family behind the Queen and Prince Charles.
The lion's share of the Queen Mother's wealth will go to her great-grandchildren.

Prince William and Prince Harry will receive nearly £2.5 million each when they reach 21.
They will each get a further £8 million when they reach 40.

Zara and Peter Phillips and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will share £6.1 million.
The children of Lady Sarah Chatto and her brother Viscount Linley will also benefit.
. . . . . .

A couple of obvious points...

The Queen Mother may have left an estate worth £60m (US$90m) but she didn't leave this amount in cash. Most of the assets (which were non-income-producing such as jewels, paintings and objet d'art) would have passed directly to the Queen in the traditional Sovereign-to-Sovereign transfer. The cash amounts listed above total over £27m (US$40m). Would conservatively-managed trust funds generate this sort of return?

Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah don't get a mention, although their children do. While they would be the beneficiaries of their mother's estate (the bulk of which I assume to be in the form of fixed assets rather than cash), how likely is it that the Queen Mother would not have made direct provision for them or have set up trust funds in their names?

 

[Iluvbertie]

I found this today by accident.
Interesting, but of course how would they know?
For the record and for whatever it's worth...

Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother 1900-2002: The Legacy: Charles to | Sunday Mirror Newspaper | Find Articles at BNET

The Queen Mother was worth an estimated £60 million - making her the third richest member of the Royal Family behind the Queen and Prince Charles.
The lion's share of the Queen Mother's wealth will go to her great-grandchildren.

Prince William and Prince Harry will receive nearly £2.5 million each when they reach 21.
They will each get a further £8 million when they reach 40.

Zara and Peter Phillips and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will share £6.1 million.
The children of Lady Sarah Chatto and her brother Viscount Linley will also benefit.
. . . . . .

A couple of obvious points...

The Queen Mother may have left an estate worth £60m (US$90m) but she didn't leave this amount in cash. Most of the assets (which were non-income-producing such as jewels, paintings and objet d'art) would have passed directly to the Queen in the traditional Sovereign-to-Sovereign transfer. The cash amounts listed above total over £27m (US$40m). Would conservatively-managed trust funds generate this sort of return?

Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah don't get a mention, although their children do. While they would be the beneficiaries of their mother's estate (the bulk of which I assume to be in the form of fixed assets rather than cash), how likely is it that the Queen Mother would not have made direct provision for them or have set up trust funds in their names?

I also find it stange that the ones that will get the most anyway in the future would get more from her.

Traditionally it has been reported that the bulk of the estates go to the younger children and their descendents as the eldest will get the crown.

I have my doubts about the legitimacy of this account.

 

[Warren]

Yes, it looks dodgy. If there is a trust fund for Wills and Harry, how could they know it will be worth at least £16m in 2022-24 when they turn 40?
As they are due to receive millions from Diana's estate and will in any case be well looked after by their father, why would the Queen Mother need to make provision for them?

Another question concerning any trust funds set up by the Queen Mother: as she was always short of cash due to vastly overspending her Civil List income, where did the seed capital come from?

 

[muriel]

I also find it stange that the ones that will get the most anyway in the future would get more from her.

Traditionally it has been reported that the bulk of the estates go to the younger children and their descendents as the eldest will get the crown.

I have my doubts about the legitimacy of this account.

While it is often true that a larger proprtionof wealth is left to younger children, ie ones who will not inherit the crown, I can see the rationale for QEQM to leave larger shares for William and Harry as she does not want to see her wealth being divided too widely, and larger shares remaining "closer" to future monarchs. No doubt that Princess Margaret was provided for well during QEQMs lifetime, and it is likely that HM took the view that that should provide the bulk of the inheritance for the Linley children.