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.
The Duchies are independent pools of capital, with very specific rules on what can or can't be done with the capital. They are held in trust for the monarch and the heir respectively. They do not belong to the government or the people.

By whom? The Queen, as Monarch or the PoW, the beneficiaries of these two Duchies.


See above.

In addition to being audited, both BP and CH publish and Annual Review that very transparently lays out their respective sources of income and expenditure, quite like a public company may. IMO, these two organisations are probably some of the most transparent organisations!

.. and bring the finances of the BRF under the direct control of the government of the day? In doing so, you will destroy the independence of the monarchy from the government of the day.


The monarch and their heir do not need the multimillion pound income from the Duchies. The money could either be paid entirely to the Exchequer or to some charity.

The working royals should of course be compensated for the work they do,and housed appropriately but they do not need to be indulged or given a life of luxury that is not available to other people.
 
The Queen uses some of the income from the Duchy of Lancaster to meet the costs of other members of the RF, she now pays these royals the allowances once given to them by the Civil List so yes she could give up the Duchy income but then she would need more in her official expenditure budget anyway.
 
How do you know the Queen doesn't 'need' Duchy of Lancaster money? She pays the expenses of her relatives when they are on public engagements on her behalf from it, for a start! If the heir to the throne had no Duchy of Cornwall money (a custom that has lasted for centuries by the way) what do you suggest the heirs live on? Direct income paid yearly by the government? Yes, that would go down well each year with British taxpayers! Or the Queen pays his expenses from her Duchy of Lancaster money? On no, wait, that's been abolished...
 
Every day the Queen steps outside she's wearing many thousands of pounds worth of clothing and jewellery. Her least valuable brooches alone are probably worth more than I earn in a year, but no one says anything about it.

I mean what must the value of this ensemble been? £10 million? £20 million? More?

Most of her personal jewels were inherited from her mother, her grandmother, and her great-grandmother, or were gifts she received from other heads of state/ countries (e.g. the Brazilian aquamarines she has been wearing quite often on state banquets lately). The older pieces (from the Victorian age) are on the other hand mostly part of the Royal Collection and are not even owned by the Queen personally.

So, it's not like the Queen has been routinely spending thousands of pounds on new jewelry lately. I suppose she does spend a considerable amount of money on clothing, but probably not as much as some younger queens in continental Europe.
 
Last edited:
I would fund the working royals generously, perhaps £100k each. At the end of the day they are still ordinary people, working for a living. They also have their private wealth so it's not as of they are living on minimum wage like millions of other Brits.
 
Would you give Princess Alexandra or the Duke of Kent who perform Royal duties intermittently (because of age/illhealth) the same salary as the Prince of Wales and Princess Anne, who undertake dozens of engagements a month, £100,000 a year? After all, they are all working royals.

Also, how would Balmoral be maintained? PMs and Governors General and other VIPs are sometimes invited to spend breaks there. Or would it be sold or allowed to fall down?
 
Last edited:
royal blue, do you really have any idea of what HM, The Queen and The Prince of Wales do with the income they receive? At all? I would suggest doing a little bit of research into that before making such a rash statement.

I kind of have to laugh because from what I know of the Queen, she may be decked out in priceless and historical glittering jewels and dine at state banquets with meals cooked to perfection by the best chefs while entertaining heads of state but she is very well known to be the mistress of being frugal and watching the costs of things.

For the most part, people that have amassed a fortune in their bank accounts keep it that way by not being excessive and knowing the value of things.
 
Last edited:
The monarch and their heir do not need the multimillion pound income from the Duchies. The money could either be paid entirely to the Exchequer or to some charity.

Ignoring the issue of what the monies from the Duchies are used for, are you suggesting a socialistic, needs-based income framework for the Queen and the PoW?

What about you and I, should our incomes be need absed as well, and the balance handed over to the Exchequer? A larhe part of the world tried that model of economy and society for about half of the last century and failed!
 
And don't forget about the biggest hangers-on (the Yorks). I am sure a huge chunk of her income goes on upkeep of their jet set and partying lifestyle and nursing the overbloated ego of mommas boy..
 
royal blue, do you really have any idea of what HM, The Queen and The Prince of Wales do with the income they receive? At all? I would suggest doing a little bit of research into that before making such a rash statement.

I kind of have to laugh because from what I know of the Queen, she may be decked out in priceless and historical glittering jewels and dine at state banquets with meals cooked to perfection by the best chefs while entertaining heads of state but she is very well known to be the mistress of being frugal and watching the costs of things.

For the most part, people that have amassed a fortune in their bank accounts keep it that way by not being excessive and knowing the value of things.

AFAIK the Queen's frugal habits are lifelong and have likely been inherited by some of her children ie: Charles and Anne's wardrobes do feature items that they've worn for decades now. Both QEII and the PoW are aware that their investments and improvements at their private estates require careful management as many people are employed at Balmoral, Sandringham and Duchy of Cornwall properties/ Highgrove's farms/shops etc.. While her children and grandchildren have inherited wealth, they do have to watch how it is spent as well. Her niece/nephew and her first cousins appear to be moderately wealthy. Over the years they've sold off some of their jewelry and homes for a variety of reasons ie: children's school fees.
 
I would fund the working royals generously, perhaps £100k each. At the end of the day they are still ordinary people, working for a living. They also have their private wealth so it's not as of they are living on minimum wage like millions of other Brits.

They dont receive a salary - dont get paid for their work. The money they receive is for staffing their office, telephones, postage, some travel etc.

So it doesnt pay fro royals, it pays for secretaries, admin, etc. Not just their salary but NI and pension.

You really do need to do some research. The information is all out there.
 
They dont receive a salary - dont get paid for their work. The money they receive is for staffing their office, telephones, postage, some travel etc.

So it doesnt pay fro royals, it pays for secretaries, admin, etc.
Not just their salary but NI and pension.

You really do need to do some research. The information is all out there.

I clearly mentioned in post 1017 on this very thread that royals are not salaried:

I think the existing funding situation for the BRF is still far too generous. It seems highly archaic for the monarch and eldest son to receive so much money from the two Royal Duchies. These funds could be better spent elsewhere. Also there seems to be very little accountability with how the Sovereign Support Grant is spent. Obviously maintenance, staff and entertainment will cost money, but royal travel in particular seems out of control. It would also be more transparent to pay a salary to each working royal, unlike the old civil list payments which had to pay for staff and offices too.

It is just my opinion that we should have a smaller working royal family who are adequately paid. The current sums (SSG and both duchies) paid out are vast but not well spent, for example the extraordinary sums spent on some first class flights, while Buckingham Palace is crumbling.
 
Last edited:
I clearly mentioned in post 1017 on this very thread that royals are not salaried:



It is just my opinion that we should have a smaller working royal family who are adequately paid. The current sums (SSG and both duchies) paid out are vast but not well spent, for example the extraordinary sums spent on some first class flights, while Buckingham Palace is crumbling.

The main issue with historical payments to the Crown is that the finances were allocated to specifics - that means that if you underspent (say) on travel you couldnt use the surplus on (say) building works. I know this seems mad, but thats how public sector funding works. I know this because I have worked for both local and national government. And I also know from experience politicans are rubbish at allocating money for building maintenance.

During PM Browns time, before funding was altered, BP requested additional funding for BP (£3m). He refused. For nearly 20 yrs across v governments, there was no increase in royal funding in real terms. This covers a time when inflation was going thru the roof.

So dont go blaming either HMQ or her team when it is obvious when you do the research that Government didnt care. IN the same way they havent bothered about The Palace of Westminster. The cost of repairing that is going to be billions.

As for the funds going to Duke of Cornwall. Thats been happening for over 500 years. I dont think giving £9 million to charitable causes which happened last year is a waste of money.

EDIT. The money from D of Cornwall cannot be used to fix BP.
 
I clearly mentioned in post 1017 on this very thread that royals are not salaried:



It is just my opinion that we should have a smaller working royal family who are adequately paid. The current sums (SSG and both duchies) paid out are vast but not well spent, for example the extraordinary sums spent on some first class flights, while Buckingham Palace is crumbling.

One thing that needs to be realized too is that with both the Sovereign Grant and the Duchy of Cornwall, what either the Queen or Charles receives annually is determined by the amount of interest the Duchy or the Crown Estates have garnered. For the Queen, it is 15% of the interest paid two years in arrears. The Crown Estates are audited every 5 years to determine the amount.

I did find a good article written last June regarding how the Duke of Cornwall has spent his Duchy payment. 61% of it was spent for official duties and his charities.

Prince Charles's Duchy of Cornwall estate is making him big money | Royal | News | Daily Express

BTW: I think if you check into it, you'll find out that Buckingham Palace is geared for some very major renovations.
 
The Duchy of Cornwall is not tied to the Crown Estates. It is the income from the holdings of the Duchy - just as the Duchy of Lancaster isn't tied to the Crown Estates as it too is the income from its holdings such as rent for properties owned by the respective duchies.

The monarchy as basically four sources of income:

1. Sovereign Grant - to cover the official costs of the senior royals other than the Wales branch of the family.

2. The Duchy of Lancaster - the private income of the monarch that also is used to cover the official costs of the minor royals and some of their personal expenses along with the Queen's own personal expenses

3. The Duchy of Cornwall - the private income of the Duke of Cornwall who has to be both the heir apparent and the eldest son of the monarch and it covers the official and private expenses of Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, George, Charlotte and Harry and in time will also have to cover Harry's wife's expenses as well as any children (until Charles is King in which case they will be covered by the Duchy of Lancaster)

4. Private income from privately owned property such as Sandringham and Balmoral and other investments made in the past such as shares.

Only the Sovereign Grant is tied to 15% of the Crown Estates.
 
A stupid american article with numerous errors.

Definitely an article that could stand some serious fact checking. According to this article, it includes the Crown Estates in the Queen's personal wealth and if they had bothered to check, they would have found that the Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

The Crown (monarch) does have a vast wealth of jewels, art, palaces and other holdings that add up to quite a valuable portfolio but it is never the personal possession of the monarch herself/himself.
 
Some of the american articles about the royal family (especially those about royal finances and succession) are so ridiculous that I find them interesting to read.
 
My favorite are the articles about HM's Manhattan property empire, which get recycled every time the Canadian consulate or UN embassy sells an apartment.
 
I have a question. I'm sorry if it has been asked and answered already.

As a member of the British Royal Family, can one control and/or direct one's own investments and income sources? If not, how far removed from the throne does one have to be?
 
I would imagine that all of them have their own private investments and portfolios that are theirs alone and personal.

Its well known that the Queen is very much into horse breeding so perhaps certain horses are invested in by her and groomed and trained to be superior race horses. She does really enjoy it watching her own horses run in a race and even more so when they win.

I know Anne has similar interests and has a stable at Gatcombe Park that is most likely her own private endeavor (perhaps with her ex husband Mark Philips?) I'm not that well informed about it but just going off the top of my head.

I'm sure others have a better idea of what their personal interests and investments are than I do but these two stood out for me for some reason. :D
 
The Queen doesn't (as far as we know) buy or direct her own investments as this is done for her, she can even keep these secret...

In fact, the Queen even has an extra mechanism to ensure that her investments remain secret - a nominee company called the Bank of England Nominees. It has been available for decades to all the world's current heads of state to allow them anonymity when buying shares. Therefore, when a company publishes a share register and the Bank of England Nominees is listed, it is not possible to gauge whether the Queen, President Bush or even Saddam Hussein is the true shareholder.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/may/30/jubilee.monarchy2

The fact is, I guess if she wanted to the Queen could use her 'insider knowledge' (She gets briefings from the Prime Minister weekly and also meets with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the day before the budget is announced) to help boost her finances but I guess part of her duty is not doing that.
As far as I know there are no rules per se banning the royal family from choosing their own investments though I imagine most rely on trusted finance experts to help them achieve the best return. Likewise I am sure all members of the RF have their own interests that require them to invest money, Princess Anne for example runs her country estate and hosts a number of events including a competitive horse eventing show. The Queen invests in her racing horses, Edward and Sophie both had money tied up in their own businesses once.
 
Last edited:
Expecting more negative press for HMQ re finances. .


Crown Estates have had a record breaking performance and it will take funding in 2017/18 from £76m to £82.2m from next April.

Because of the arrangement to fund the 10 yr refurbishment of BP, the funding is based on 25% of profits from Crown Estates.

(Source: The Times)

and even though people on here will know the reasons why etc., the majority of the UK public will not like this. More fodder for the anti-monarchists etc.


From front page on tomorrow's Times - also front page Express. Full stories not yet available
 
Actually, in the wake of the fire at Grenfell Towers and the subsequent findings of so many other buildings deemed "unsafe" for habitation, it may help the public to realize that places like Buckingham Palace which is a British National Treasure (in my book) needs to be updated, repaired and renovated in order to not only be safe but to also ensure that the building will be there to use for generations to come.

Grenfell Tower was a horrific tragedy that could have been so easily averted but out of it did come some good with other buildings being looked into, deemed unsafe and evacuated. It saddens me to think that the building that could have easily been burnt and destroyed could have been BP instead.

The work needs to be done. It will take 10 years to complete. The cost to get it done and get it done right is well worth it.
 
I am waiting for the outcries over the expenses for Andrew's trip to Botswana and Mozambique - but if memory serves correctly that was the tour he was asked to do when Anne took ill and had to cancel. The double standards will be interesting as if Anne had done it it would have been ok but for Andrew it wasn't.
 
Actually, in the wake of the fire at Grenfell Towers and the subsequent findings of so many other buildings deemed "unsafe" for habitation, it may help the public to realize that places like Buckingham Palace which is a British National Treasure (in my book) needs to be updated, repaired and renovated in order to not only be safe but to also ensure that the building will be there to use for generations to come.

Grenfell Tower was a horrific tragedy that could have been so easily averted but out of it did come some good with other buildings being looked into, deemed unsafe and evacuated. It saddens me to think that the building that could have easily been burnt and destroyed could have been BP instead.

The work needs to be done. It will take 10 years to complete. The cost to get it done and get it done right is well worth it.

The comparison with Grenfell somehow derailes I think. Here we are talking about a lady, with a residence as big as Grenfell. And with other residences as big as Grenfell at her disposal. The doomed tower was cramped with people relying on social housing. Buckingham Palace houses one of the wealthiest ladies in Britain. The residents of Grenfell had to move heaven and earth -in vain- with their landlords to get the building properly updated. The resident of Buckingham Palace lays the bill at the taxpayers' doorstep. So any comparison with Grenfell will only work as the famous red cloth on a bull, I am afraid to say...
 
I must say the method of giving the Queen a pay rise to cover the costs of the maintenance of Buckingham Palace is a bit unlogical. When I was the Chancellor (the Minister of Finances) I would assign funds to a new chapter in the State Budget: "Restoration Buckingham Palace" and leave the Queen's income completely apart. Superficially seen it reads as: "The Queen gets an enormous pay rise" and that is true but then one has to read furtherer. I would have made a stricter separation to create transparency.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom