Royal Wealth and Finances 1: Ending 2022

[cepe]

Every day is a tourist peak in London.

 

[yvr girl]

Clearly the Queen's staff have been dipping in the cookie jar.

The Duchy of Lancaster lost money last year & now this.

The staff eats for free. When C&D lived in KP, the KP staff ate at BP and the food wasn't exactly standard fare but on the expensive side. The staff appears to eat better than the RF.
There are 188 staff bedrooms at BP. Do they need that many live-in staff?

Steps to reduce cost.
1. Decrease the number staff.
2. Reduce food budget.
3. Increase number of days BP is opened.
4. Offer tea in the BP gardens.
5. Grow more food at BP.
6. Roof top garden.
7. Roof top can be rented for parties.
8. Sell BP products, like the Duchy of Cornwall.

The staff who live at BP get a room as part of their wages. I don't think they could live anywhere else on what they make. The domestic staff don't earn much at all. I don't think a rooftop garden would be safe. The building wasn't designed for that - and it already has structural issues.

I think the main problem is that the Civil List was static for 20 years. I would be very curious to see the average increase for other government departments over the same time period. Early in that time period the Queen saved what she could - building up a reserve. In the latter years she has used that reserve to fund regular operations. What she should have done is cancel a few garden parties and turn some state banquets into drinks receptions - due to funding levels. It would have made the point that inflation is a reality we all face.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

The White House is open for public tours, even though many people work there and the President and his family live there, so it can be manage. It would be harder because Buckingham Palace is bigger--which on the surface may seem to make it easier, but actually makes it harder. The White House's public rooms are all connected. I imagine things are more spread out in Buckingham Palace.

It's unfortunate that it has gotten to this point. It's easy to criticize staff decisions but it's difficult (and expensive) to maintain large historic buildings, especially when they are still in use. Buildings have a natural lifespan. Even if they completely shut down Buckingham Palace and did extensive renovations, we would be hearing about the need for more renovations in twenty years. It's inevitable.

 

[Jacknch]

There has to be a way of being able to open the palace up to the public on every day that no state or official business is being carried out, or perhaps even every day that the Queen is not in residence. To my mind, that means every weekend seeing as HM tends to spend the weekends at Windsor and, of-course, the weeks spent up at Sandringham.

The original idea of opening up the Palace during the summer was to pay for the restoration of Windsor Castle after the fire. That was finished years ago, so where is all the money going now? What would the Royal Collection want with the earnings from Buckingham Palace?

The Queen herself is, I think, very canny with money and frugal in her day to day life. Clearly, her coutiers are not! I can well believe that they would fob her off with a load of nonsense if she asked about the accounts and things! No one has bothered to at least find out how much the costs of repairs would be!

 

[muriel]

I am glad the Chancellor is standing up to the rabid and overtly political Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee who authored this report.

George Osborne: Queen's advisers have been 'unfairly' criticised - Telegraph

George Osborne: Queen's advisers have been 'unfairly' criticised

George Osborne, the Chancellor, turns on Labour's Margaret Hodge after report finds Queen's advisers are failing her

 

[agogo]

The Queen’s household finances were at a “historic low” with just £1 million left in reserve, MPs said on Monday

So this is a fund for the cost of living expenses and upkeep of the properties that the BRF live in? This is "historic low" is not Her Majesty's personal wealth?

 

[Dman]

Video:
Royal Household Costs-
Home - ITNSource News

Home - ITNSource News

 

[Iluvbertie]

One thing to remember is that the carpets that the tourists walk on aren't the 'real' ones that are there for the official events and they take about a week to take up and put down again so opening on the weekends isn't viable unless the real carpets are put into storage and only the hard wearing ones are down.

This is also the London home for Edward and Andrew so even when The Queen isn't in residence there is a good chance that one or other of those two are and there are also engagements held there by other royals as well as The Queen.

Last year there were 416 engagements carried out in the official rooms at BP but only 187 of those were done by The Queen while 229 were done by the other members of the family. It is the most used royal palace.

To open it more often means moving many of those 229 elsewhere or not holding them at all.

The reason this happened was that the Civil List and assorted other funding was frozen in 1997, under Blair, and hasn't gone up in real terms at all since then so what could be done in 1997 for 1 million pounds now costs 2 million or more but they are still only being given the 1 million.

My solution - the RF moves out of BP altogether and it is simply a museum of the past - no engagements there - no Garden Parties, no investitures, no receptions, no meetings, no dinners, no luncheons, etc etc. Most of the staff who live there and work there are sacked as they won't be needed anymore. Stop lighting it up at night.

The monarch lives permanently at Windsor or even Sandringham and all the rest of the family also lives there so no separate residences for William and Kate or Charles and Camilla - four generations all living in the same house - the monarch and all the monarch's descendants live in one house and only when the monarch changes do the non-descendants move out - but they also leave the royal family, lose royal status and have to fend for themselves.

Extreme - of course - but I get the feeling that many people in the UK would like to see something like that - even going further - to remove all bar the direct line from the royal family.

By the way - some of the above is serious but other bits are tongue in cheek.

 

[Jacknch]

Well, I suppose we could always look to see how other countrys manage the upkeep of their palaces. Frederik VIII's palace at Amelienborg was completely renovated - if the Danes can do it why can't we?!! Having said that, given half of Somerset is still under water after several weeks with no one in authority seemingly able to do much to help the people flooded out of their homes, I suppose there is not much hope for leaking palace roofs!

 

[cepe]

The Queen’s household finances were at a “historic low” with just £1 million left in reserve, MPs said on Monday

So this is a fund for the cost of living expenses and upkeep of the properties that the BRF live in? This is "historic low" is not Her Majesty's personal wealth?

Correct - this is not her personal wealth - it is the fund to pay the household salaries, travel costs, maintain the buildings, run the royal functions. And this is what is left at present. As this is the fund that would be used as contingency and considering the assets that are being managed, it is a drop in the ocean.

It is not the fund that pays allowances to royals.

No member of the royal family is actually paid a salary

 

[tommy100]

I've been a massive geek and read the Committee of Public Accounts report in full. One of the reasons given by the Household for not opening the Palace more frequently is that unless its for a long period of time like the summer opening, its not cost efficient and does not make a profit. Sir Alan Reid pointed out that the White House and the Palace of Westminster openings (those most compared in the report at least to opening the Palace more) are not designed to make a profit so this means they can open even when doing so does not make it cost efficient to do so.
They pointed out there have been more private group tours of the palace and I think these are the way forward and should be extended to include one or two nights every week of the year. Maybe they could make a Winter opening, the Queen does not move back into the Palace until early February, maybe this could be pushed back until the end of Feb and the Palace opened up for some of Dec, all of Jan and Feb, this might be cost efficient or they could just extend private group tours and really plough through a number within this time.
Also the suggestion of using the Garden Parties to make money is already in place, the Palace have allowed a number of charities or companies to pay a fee to use the marquees and facilities for their own events. This should be extended further IMO.

An ideal solution might be (I know it won't happen) for the Household to keep a years income from the Crown Estates to pay for most of the repairs needed in one go. I think if they can get on top of the repairs the annual allowance for the Household would be more than enough (I know there will always be some repairs needed but if they could get past the massive mountain there is at present it wouldn't be as bad!!)

 

[cepe]

The estimate for repairs is £50m and I would guess that is not enough. So in excess of 1 yrs income is required. They are currently overspending the budget by just over £2m. And not spending the income at all cant be done as you say because staff have to be paid and utility bills etc etc.

This is going to take radical thinking and needs to include Charles and William as they are going to inherit these problems. Fixing the problems in terms of the buildings is very expensive because of maintaining their historical integrity and it will take years. IT could potentially be even more expensive if they are self-insuring. That's high risk!

Building the reserves back up will also take time.

It's going to be difficult because the Queen is a creature of habit and operates on a strict calendar.

I think our suggestions are useful but it needs something "bigger"

 

[tommy100]

Sorry might not have made it clear in my original post that I was suggesting the Palace be allowed to keep more or all of the Crown Estates profit (this is what the current Sovereign Grant is based on), in the financial year ending 2013 the profit was £252.6million!! (The Crown Estate || Financial information) Half of that given to the Queen and her court (who at the start of each reign hand the income from the Crown estate to the government in exchange for government financing) would solve the problem. Maybe just a one off payment would do it!! (Though I know this won't happen)

 

[ladongas]

This will not be a popular suggestion...

...but as I understand it, the Queen has vast holdings of art which belong to her personally. I would assume that they are on the walls and pedestals of rooms which will never be seen publicly. Perhaps she could sell some of those things in order to finance repairs to BP and Windsor. It would be a graceful gesture on the part of HM. Ordinary people sell things when they need to raise money.

 

[Skippyboo]

The art in the royal collection is not owned by her majesty personally. It is owned by the state just like BP, Windsor and the Crown Jewels. The money from opening the palaces and the various palace gift stores goes into the maintenance of the royal collection.

The maintenance problems of the palace isn't unique to the BRF. The parliament building is London is in bad shape also. In the Us, the national park services has a several years of maintenance problems for its parks, monuments and memorials.

 

[Iluvbertie]

...but as I understand it, the Queen has vast holdings of art which belong to her personally. I would assume that they are on the walls and pedestals of rooms which will never be seen publicly. Perhaps she could sell some of those things in order to finance repairs to BP and Windsor. It would be a graceful gesture on the part of HM. Ordinary people sell things when they need to raise money.

The Queen could sell things she owns as a private citizen to fund repairs, if needed on her private property, but not to fund the state owned property or it sets an awful example - who next has to sell privately owned possessions to fund publicly owned property? Do we suggest that The Duke of Westminster sell his private property to fund the repairs to Westminster Palace?

The majority of the art works that The Queen 'owns' is actually part of the royal collection and thus belongs to the state and so she can't sell it. That is the same with gifts that she and the rest of the family are given - over a certain value it belongs to the royal collection and thus can't be sold either.

 

[COUNTESS]

It is all nonsense. "The staff ate free", oh how shocking. People being fed that work for less than they would in the private sector. One of the complaints. Look The "Royal Family" want for nothing. They work at nothing of much importance, some do more than others. If those Palaces belong to the people they should have access to them. It is a give and take situation. She lives for free forever, basically so do her children and grandchildren, to some extent. She pay from her purse. Where did she get that purse? She inherited a great deal of it. No one is jealous. They look at the poor pensioner who worked his butt off and see people in palaces who need more.

 

[Ish]

While I respect your opinion, I often wonder why, given as you have such disdain for royals in general, you bother to spend your time on a forum dedicated to discussing them.

The BRF, regardless of the wage they pay, is under no obligation to feed its staff. Nor are they required to provide housing and what not. Nor should they be expected to sell off their privately owned property - however ill fully gained you might consider it to be - in order to finance repairs of state owned buildings.

 

[Royal_Royal]

It is all nonsense. "The staff ate free", oh how shocking. People being fed that work for less than they would in the private sector. One of the complaints. Look The "Royal Family" want for nothing. They work at nothing of much importance, some do more than others. If those Palaces belong to the people they should have access to them. It is a give and take situation. She lives for free forever, basically so do her children and grandchildren, to some extent. She pay from her purse. Where did she get that purse? She inherited a great deal of it. No one is jealous. They look at the poor pensioner who worked his butt off and see people in palaces who need more.

Before you start to complain about how the British Royal Family acquired their properties, Countess, you should remember that the land where you and all the other americans are living now was conquered by the shedding of amerindian blood.

 

[Zonk]

Really folks?!

Let's stay on topic (i.e which has noting to do with The American Indians).

Any and all additional off topic posts will be deleted without notice.

 

[Skippyboo]

The staff doesn't get free housing. They pay a portion of their salary. A cleaner or footman don't have a large salary and could not afford to live in central London without a subsidized housing benefit.

 

[mslewis]

I suppose the British tax payers will be willing to pay for repairs on Buck House if one of the ceilings were to fall down and seriously hurt the Queen or someone else. This is all so foolish, I think. If repairs are needed, no matter how much it costs, the repairs should be done and done NOW because the problem will only get worse and cost more as the years go by.

Back in the early 50s the White House had to be totally gutted and rebuilt while President Truman and family lived across the street. I haven't read that anyone complained because the repairs were necessary and if they had not been made the House would be unlivable now. Buckingham Palace is far older than our White House. Just do the repairs and have done with it.

 

[Victorian-Dandy]

Unfortunately I can see the cash shortfall and the need for major repair work on the royal palaces being used by the various political parties to bash each other over the head with instead of working together to solve a potentially disastrous situation because the longer it drags on the less likely it will be feasible to repair the older places.

Personally the thought of them closing down BP or any of the other royal residences permanently or worst still selling them off to the highest bidder horrifies me but then I'm a sucker for the BRF, history and architecture.

 

[ladongas]

The art in the royal collection is not owned by her majesty personally. It is owned by the state just like BP, Windsor and the Crown Jewels. The money from opening the palaces and the various palace gift stores goes into the maintenance of the royal collection.

The maintenance problems of the palace isn't unique to the BRF. The parliament building is London is in bad shape also. In the Us, the national park services has a several years of maintenance problems for its parks, monuments and memorials.

Well, yes, of course I understand that the "royal collection" belongs to the state. But HM also has a large collection of art which belongs to her exclusively. Here's just one article delineating it:

Just How Rich Are Queen Elizabeth And Her Family? - Forbes

Queen Elizabeth, 85, has an estimated personal net worth of $500 million that comes from property holdings including Balmoral Castle in the Scottish Highlands, stud farms, a fruit farm and marine land throughout the U.K.; extensive art and fine jewelry; and one of the world’s largest stamp collections built by her grandfather.[/

That art has gone unseen by the outside world for decades, perhaps centuries, and it might be a noble gesture on the part of the Queen to 'chip in' to pay for restoring BP and Windsor.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This is still mixing up her personal holdings and her holdings as The Queen/Duke of Lancaster. The 'marine land' is due to being Duke of Lancaster.

What art is privately owned is also hard to delineate - e.g. art works that were commissioned by her ancestors, who paid for them to be completed - are they still personal property or are they part of the heritage of the nation and not her personal property e.g. Charles I commissioned a lot of artwork - does she own that personally? What about the art works etc commissioned by George IV? The problem is where the money came from that was used which can argue that all the art work and jewellery are actually not hers personally.

That 500 million pound figure is disputed by a number of people for the simple reason that it isn't clear who actually owns a lot of the stuff.

Why she should have to pay for the maintenance of state owned property is beyond me?

 

[Ish]

That art has gone unseen by the outside world for decades, perhaps centuries, and it might be a noble gesture on the part of the Queen to 'chip in' to pay for restoring BP and Windsor.

Question. Say you rent a house and one day you discover that there's a leak in the roof. This isn't because of anything you've done, but simply that the roof is old and needs to be replaced. Who's responsible for paying for the new roof, you or your landlord? The renter or the property owner?

The Queen and her family, for all intensive purposes, are the renters in this situation. Yes, they may be far wealthier than the average renter, and the financial situation may be somewhat different, but when it comes down to it places like BP are not owned by the BRF. So why should they be expected to spend their personal money on repairing these buildings that are owned by the state?

 

[ladongas]

Question. Say you rent a house and one day you discover that there's a leak in the roof. This isn't because of anything you've done, but simply that the roof is old and needs to be replaced. Who's responsible for paying for the new roof, you or your landlord? The renter or the property owner?

The Queen and her family, for all intensive purposes, are the renters in this situation. Yes, they may be far wealthier than the average renter, and the financial situation may be somewhat different, but when it comes down to it places like BP are not owned by the BRF. So why should they be expected to spend their personal money on repairing these buildings that are owned by the state?

The buildings in which the BRF have been privileged to live in for centuries, are not, for all intents and purposes, rental properties. No other family will be permitted to live there. The BRF are stewards of these properties and it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to make a magnificent contribution toward their upkeep.

Anyone who has ever been a renter knows that sometimes you do maintenance on that rental, even though a landlord should really be doing it. But you are the one living there, getting the benefit of whatever maintenance you do. For the BRF to put their own money into BP and Windsor is the equivalent of the average renter putting a coat of paint on the cottage. (And when that renter paints the cottage he has no assurance that he will be able to live there past the end of the lease. The Queen's family will still be able to enjoy that new roof and paint job into the far, far future.)

Right now, the Queen is very popular. She would be even more popular if she put some of her considerable wealth into maintaining the family "cottages." And it would assure that the next king would not have to go hat in hand to get money to make those repairs.

 

[Elenath]

It sets a precedent though and I’m not sure if that’s such a good idea. The British people have a pretty good deal with their RF and they don’t even know it. The DRF doesn’t bring in money, they just cost money. And most people here are fine with that. We accept that the upkeep of the palaces is/should be paid by the government using public funds.

Now.. I’m not an expert when it comes to the workings of the BRF, but if the British government gets the profits of the Crown Estates, which technically still belong to the BRF (AKA The Queen), and have to pay for the Queens expenses and the upkeep of the palaces in return that seems like a bloody good deal to me and they really shouldn’t whine. Especially since the profits are a lot higher than the expenses and the Queens expenses haven’t gone up since 1997.

An alternative would be for the BRF to keep the profits and they would have to pay for everything themselves. But I suppose the British government won’t like that either. They’ve gotten used to that nice little extra income.

 

[Royal_Royal]

The buildings in which the BRF have been privileged to live in for centuries, are not, for all intents and purposes, rental properties. No other family will be permitted to live there. The BRF are stewards of these properties and it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to make a magnificent contribution toward their upkeep.

Do you think Mr. Obama should pay for repairs at the White House? Or maybe the current President and the former living Presidents should pay, because all of them had the privilege to live there.

I can't see even a single reason for The Queen having to pay the repairs with her personal money.

 

[Victorian-Dandy]

...An alternative would be for the BRF to keep the profits and they would have to pay for everything themselves. But I suppose the British government won’t like that either. They’ve gotten used to that nice little extra income.

Exactly.

There is no way our government regardless of the political party in charge is going to surrender all the profits from the Crown Estates so that the palaces are brought up to standard.

They cannot expect the upkeep of palaces etc to remain static and I honestly believe that the expenses are in need of an increase but due to the austerity measures the ConLib government are constantly pushing through parliament I cannot see that happening, though they will of course happily give themselves an increase in wage.