Royal Wealth and Finances 1: Ending 2022

[Roslyn]

This Crown Estates buisiness is interesting. It's a very good thing that what was left of the Crown Lands was surrendered to the government as it has been administered far better since then.

In the event that Britain does become a republic and the Crown Estates are returned to the Monarch, I think the Monarch, whoever it happened to be at the time, would be bouncing around with sheer joy: scads of money to do with as he/she wished with no obligation to spend any of it on anyone else, and all thanks to the good management of the government.

The monarchs had a woeful history with the Crown Lands, selling them and mortgaging them and giving parcels to favourites. In 3 years Charles II managed the staggering feat of reducing the Crown Lands income from 217,000 pounds to 100,000 pounds. James II and William III were "equally liberal and improvident" and on the accession of Queen Anne it was found by parliament that the crown lands "had been so reduced that the nett income from them scarcely exceeded the rent-roll of a squire", and it was recognised that "her Majesty's land revenue at present can affort very little towards the support of her government." Legislation was introduced prohibiting absolute grants entirely and imposing stringent conditions on the length of term and rentals of future leases, and on his accession George III surrendered his interest in return for the civil list.

During the first 25 years of George III ( i.e. 1760 - 1785) the Crown Lands produced a nett average rental of little more than 6,000 pounds. Improved administration and a rise in land value made them much more productive. By 1798 they were valued at 201,250 pounds per year, by 1812 at 283,160; by 1820 314,852, and in 1830, 373,770. Seems it was not till 1860 they returned an income (416,530 pounds) which exceeded the civil list granted to the Queen. In 1958-1959 they returned 1,530,000 pounds. (Taswell-Langmead's Constitutional History, 11th Edition, 1960.)

 

[Skydragon]

Their reason for releasing that information is pure PR. It's much easier, when someone believes something that is untrue--e.g., the majority of the British public believing that they pay directly for the monarchy--to convince them that the untrue thing they believe is really not very bad. It is much, much harder to tell them "what you believe is wrong, here's the way it really is".

The Treasury contributed the equivalent of 66 pence per person in the country - They have no reason to lie, especially as some would think it wonderful if they didn't have to pay their 66p to the upkeep of the monarch.

The double thinking you suggest is illogical to say the least.

We are not going to tell you good news because you don't expect it?

 

[Skydragon]

In the event that Britain does become a republic and the Crown Estates are returned to the Monarch, I think the Monarch, whoever it happened to be at the time, would be bouncing around with sheer joy: scads of money to do with as he/she wished with no obligation to spend any of it on anyone else, and all thanks to the good management of the government.

If Britain became a republic, I would think the odds are against the 'new' government handing anything back to anyone. They would probably put in a bill for the management of the estates for so many years!

 

[love_cc]

I have just read the Queen's annual review and the Prince of Wales's annual review. The queen's annual report is just as plain as it can be, but Prince Charles's report is as colourful as can be.

I was unable to find out the amount of revenue generated by the Duchy of Lancaster, I wonder whether the annual review has revealed that? The prince's report revealed Duchy of Cornwall's revenue without singling the income segments......

Even an annual report can reveal some character difference between mother and son, how amazing is it!

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

The Treasury contributed the equivalent of 66 pence per person in the country

That's an important distinction to make. Saying "the taxpayer etc" is misleading at best.

I was unable to find out the amount of revenue generated by the Duchy of Lancaster

The Duchy returns somewhere between 7 and 10 million pounds annually to HM. The entire thing is worth around 300M pounds, if memory serves.

 

[Warren]

Duchy of Lancaster
From the Royal website:

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.
Revenues presented to the Sovereign are currently in the region of £8m per year.
Money from the Duchy is mainly used to cover official expenditure not met by the Civil List, such as the official expenses of other members of the Royal Family.

All revenue profits from the Duchy of Lancaster distributed to the Sovereign are subject to income tax in the normal way.
The annual accounts of the Duchy are submitted to Parliament. Full copies of recent years' accounts can be found on the web site of the Duchy of Lancaster.
...
£8m = Australian $16.7m, NZ $21m, US $15.9m, Canadian $16.2m, Euro €10.1m

 

[wbenson]

That's an important distinction to make. Saying "the taxpayer etc" is misleading at best.

They don't put the money from the Crown Estate in a special fund. It gets mixed in with all the other money, so it can't really be said that the funding for the Sovereign comes straight out of that. The Crown Estate is just another source of income for the treasury, so I think it's fair to say, if you mix everything together, that a good percentage of each pound spent (probably upwards of 99%) is taxpayer money.

ETA: In 2007, the Crown Estates made up 0.03% of the Treasury's receipts.

 

[Skydragon]

The Treasury contributed the equivalent of 66 pence per person in the country

That's an important distinction to make. Saying "the taxpayer etc" is misleading at best.

Not at all, the treasury derives much of it's money from the taxpayer - About HM Treasury - therefore 66p of each and every persons tax is put towards supporting HM.

The argument that UK citizens are not being told their tax does not pay towards HM because they don't expect it, does not make sense and is, of course, inaccurate

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Not at all, the treasury derives much of it's money from the taxpayer - About HM Treasury - therefore 66p of each and every persons tax is put towards supporting HM.

Except that's simply not true. There is no cost to the taxpayer. If I give you $100 every year, and you give me back $50, the net cost to you is zero.

The argument that UK citizens are not being told their tax does not pay towards HM because they don't expect it, does not make sense and is, of course, inaccurate

You're misunderstanding my point. Many people--yourself included, apparently--seem to think that the monarchy actually costs the taxpayer something. It doesn't (except inasmuch as Army, RN, and RAF units are used for security etc, but those costs are not disclosed, and are in any case not what we are discussing here), but many people think so anyway.

One of the basic lessons of marketing and PR is that if a lot of people believe something that is factually, it is very difficult to make them believe otherwise. This is largely because explaining to large numbers of people involves going into detail that they are just uninterested in hearing, and which detracts from the message you are trying to get across. Buck House are masters of spin and PR (witness how they handled the Queen around Diana's death, for example--I think it was a genius stroke, with the net result being 1) it looked like HM 'gave in' to what her subjects wanted, and 2) set the stage for HM being more open and emotional in public. Win-win. But I digress), and they recognize this basic fact.

Therefore, with people believing that HM costs them money (whether it's only 66p or people saying "Those damn parasites!" it's all essentially the same), it is very difficult to explain that "Well, okay yes the money goes into the Treasury, and comes out of the Treasury, but since a whole lot more money goes in than comes out, it actually costs you nothing," for two reasons. One, as mentioned above, that detracts from the key message, which is "Look at how much pomp and circumstance and goodwill you get, and how cheap it really is," and second, many people would see the true explanation as an attempt to pull a fast one--which just creates, of course, more problems and PR headaches down the road.

So. It is much simpler for the Palace and the Treasury to say what they do; this avoids lengthy explanations while still homing in on the key message.

Frankly, I do think Buck House is missing a trick in not being a lot louder about how much more efficient they are at handling the money in-house vs. back when Parliament managed the accounts. I can't remember the actual number, but we are talking orders of magnitude of efficiency since Buck House took over handling expenditures. Publicizing it a bit more might turn public opinion towards "Is that all she gets? Give her more to fix the Palaces!" but who knows.

 

[COUNTESS]

Sorry, in difficult financial times, people can well see what The RF has at their disposal and what the average citizen has. No one will cry about her "home" needing redecorating. If it does. She can afford to do it. Just as they felt about restoring Windsor after the fire. It only belongs to the public when it is damaged. Didn't sell that time and rightly so.

 

[Skydragon]

Except that's simply not true. There is no cost to the taxpayer. If I give you $100 every year, and you give me back $50, the net cost to you is zero.

We will have to agree to disagree, I think you are seriously wrong and would rather believe the UK treasury when they tell UK citizens that only 66pence of their tax contributes, towards the upkeep of HM.

The government would never miss the trick you are suggesting!

It is simple math - The Duchy of Lancaster brings in 8m, HM costs 40m (+15m).

This is the official notification

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

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

The Duchy of Lancaster has nothing to do with it; that is HM's private income (it's called Privy Purse for a reason). The fact that she uses some of it to fund official engagements is neither here nor there.

And, sorry, but you're wrong. It's really simple math. HM gives the government a hundred-and-whatever million pounds a year. She gets back less than that. Net cost to taxpayer: zero. You're really not addressing that; you just keep saying "The Treasury is right!" Really.. it's just basic math. Like I said before, if I give you $100 at the beginning of the year, and you give me $50 at the end of the year, the net cost to you is zero. Yes, you can argue that the money I give you and the money you give me are separate entities, but that does not change the extremely basic arithmetic involved.

 

[Elspeth]

And, sorry, but you're wrong. It's really simple math. HM gives the government a hundred-and-whatever million pounds a year.

No, she doesn't. The Crown Estate hasn't been managed by or for the royal family for centuries, and I don't think it was in that good a shape when control was handed over to the government by George III - which I believe was why it was done. Its purpose was to provide revenue for the monarch to administer the goverment; since the monarch doesn't do that now, the revenue (apart from the Civil List monies) goes to the Treasury. The Queen is not making a donation to the government. The Crown Estate doesn't belong to her.

From the FAQs on the Crown Estate website (highlighting added):

Who owns The Crown Estate?
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch ‘in right of The Crown’, that is, it is inherent with the 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 sovereign.
The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation – established by statute – headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers.
To explain further, one analogy that could be used is that The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels – part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use.

FAQs

Since revenues from the Crown Estate do not belong to the Sovereign, she can't give them to the government.

 

[Skydragon]

HM gives the government a hundred-and-whatever million pounds a year. She gets back less than that. Net cost to taxpayer: zero. You're really not addressing that; you just keep saying "The Treasury is right!" .

I think Elspeth has answered your point, with the fact that HM doesn't own the Crown Estates and wbenson also pointed out your error with regard to the proportion paid by the CE (0.03%).
The Monarchy Today > Royal finances > Sources of funding > Civil List
If you are still not convinced, I suggest you write to the Treasury and BP and suggest they use the media and/or their normal way of communicating to UK taxpayers (letters, P60's, Census forms, Banding notification, etc, etc) to explain to UK taxpayers that they have been telling lies all these years, as you suggest that they would be unable to communicate to us the error of our thinking!
From the website posted by Warren, this is the income HM has but in no way does it cover all her expenditure, hence the 66p contribution from UK taxpayers

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.

You could try reading the official links provided!
The Monarchy Today > Royal finances > Privy Purse and Duchy of Lancaster

The Privy Purse, mainly financed by the net income from the Duchy, is used to meet both official expenditure incurred by The Queen as Sovereign and private expenditure

The Monarchy Today > The Royal Household > Departments > Privy Purse and Treasurer's Office

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Since revenues from the Crown Estate do not belong to the Sovereign, she can't give them to the government.

Interesting that the arrangement has to be renewed at the accession of each sovereign, wouldn't you say?

I think Elspeth has answered your point, with the fact that HM doesn't own the Crown Estates and wbenson also pointed out your error with regard to the proportion paid by the CE (0.03%).

She hasn't, but whatever. And the proportion is immaterial. Again.. basic math.

You could try reading the official links provided!

You could try not being rude.

The Duchy of Lancaster has nothing to do with it; that is HM's private income (it's called Privy Purse for a reason). The fact that she uses some of it to fund official engagements is neither here nor there.

Since you didn't seem to read it the first time.

Whatever, you are more happy snarking than actually engaging in discussion. That's your choice, but I have no interest in continuing.

 

[wbenson]

Interesting that the arrangement has to be renewed at the accession of each sovereign, wouldn't you say?

Interesting, yes, and "has to be" is an operative phrase. It's seen nowadays as a convention on the lines of appointing the proper person to be Prime Minister. It isn't the sovereign's personal property. The very title makes that quite clear. "Crown estates." As you most likely know, the Crown (i.e. the state) owns all government property. The Queen can no more take personal possession of the Crown Estates than she can a Via Rail train (a Crown Corporation).

 

[Skydragon]

You could try reading the official links provided!

You could try not being rude.

I fail to see how suggesting you get the information from the official links provided is rude!

Since you didn't seem to read it the first time.

I read it the first time, but as it is not only HM's private income, I disregarded it.

The Privy Purse, mainly financed by the net income from the Duchy, is used to meet both official expenditure incurred by The Queen as Sovereign and private expenditure

Here are a couple of addresses where you can find out, for yourself, whether UK taxpayers actually contribute to the upkeep of the Royal Family. They may be able to explain it to you.

The Correspondence & Enquiry Unit
2/W1
HM Treasury
1 Horse Guards Road
London
SW1A 2HQ
public.enquiries@hm-treasury.gsi.gov.uk

Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP
Chancellor of the Exchequer
HM Treasury
1 Horse Guards Road
LONDON SW1A 2HQ
ministers@hm-treasury.gsi.gov.uk

 

[Elspeth]

Mind you, I think PrinceOf Canada has a very valid point that most people don't know of the existence of the Crown Estate, or its origin or purpose, and just believe that the royal family is taking handouts from the taxpayer without any reason or basis for it. If more people knew about the surrender of the Crown Lands in return for the government paying for its own upkeep and also granting the Civil List payments to the Sovereign to pay for the upkeep of the monarch's branch of the government, it may lead to fewer misunderstandings. It seems as though a lot of people (not on this forum, but British people in general) believe that the Civil List is just pocket money for the royals and that somehow their expenses get paid in some other way.

 

[Skydragon]

Mind you, I think PrinceOf Canada has a very valid point that most people don't know of the existence of the Crown Estate, or its origin or purpose, and just believe that the royal family is taking handouts from the taxpayer without any reason or basis for it.....Snipped

No they don't understand, but they are only interested in the fact that Royals take 66p of their hard earned money.

The main complaint I often hear, is that HM and all of the royals do not disclose their personal fortunes and until they do, they shouldn't be getting any money from 'us'.

My opinion is that there should be a bigger contribution towards the upkeep of the main royal palaces (a 100% turn around) but the priorities would be better decided/handled outwith the staff now employed or the government. With tight controls and penalty clauses to stop the work going massively over budget, it could be done.

If minor royals then had to live off their investments or seek employment, people would start to feel 'they' were making an effort. Many cannot see why many of them are paid by HM or allowed accommodation at peppercorn or subsidised rents.

 

[Odette]

The tenants of apartments at Kensington Palace who have them out of favour and grace.....( I do not even know who is left these days) get rent free accomodations and from what I think I know, the Queen provides these apartments to them. Who is paying for these expenses?
( I love this thread. Thank you all for contributing it is amazing.....)

 

[tommy1716]

i think my understanding of the crown estate situation is that the estates belong to the Soverign as Head of State, not the Queen as individual, thus no soverign could claim the money for herself of himself, they could though claim it back to pay for official costs but not personal costs.

the argument for the royal family costing nothing is better put this way:

"The Royal family brings in millions (or billions) of pounds in tourism etc"

The situation with the Crown Estates is one that some people will feel strongly about one way or the other, that either the Soverign costs nothing as the Crown Estate profits go to the State or that HM has no right to claim the monies herself anyway.

 

[Duchess]

PrinceofCanada, i think you could compare the crown estates to what we call crown assets or crown property here in canada...it doesn't personally belong to the queen but to the "crown".

 

[tommy1716]

PrinceofCanada, i think you could compare the crown estates to what we call crown assets or crown property here in canada...it doesn't personally belong to the queen but to the "crown".

I agrre, i think that is the best way to describe the Crown Estates, in the same way the Queen does not get invovled or own the "Crown Courts" she does not own the "Crown Estates" they belong to the "Crown" and therfore belong to the state and the Crown represents the State.

 

[tommy1716]

The tenants of apartments at Kensington Palace who have them out of favour and grace.....( I do not even know who is left these days) get rent free accomodations and from what I think I know, the Queen provides these apartments to them. Who is paying for these expenses?
( I love this thread. Thank you all for contributing it is amazing.....)

I understand that The Duke and duchess of Kent, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and Prince and princess Michael of Kent live in Kensington Palace still. the Kents and gloucesters either live at the palace free or for a very very low rate. However controversy arose over Prince and Princess Michael of Kents rent and use of the palace as they do not officially represent the Queen and do not technically perform public engagements many MPs argued that they should be kicked out. Before this the Prince and Princess paid £6,000 a year in rent, afterwards however HM herself now pays £120,000 a year in rent for their apartment in the palace on their behalf.

Staff who live in Kensington Palace pay 16.7% of their salary in rent.

BBC NEWS | UK Politics | Kensington Palace: Who lives there
Queen to pay £120,000 palace rent for the Kents - Telegraph

Incendentley Kensington Palace only costs the taxpayer £100,000 a year in unkeep at the moment not millions of pounds as other residences do.

 

[Skydragon]

i think my understanding of the crown estate situation is that the estates belong to the Soverign as Head of State, not the Queen as individual, thus no soverign could claim the money for herself of himself, they could though claim it back to pay for official costs but not personal costs.

I don't believe they are able to claim it back, the amount HM receives in total, is argued about and then set by the government of the day.

"The Royal family brings in millions (or billions) of pounds in tourism etc"

The BRF may bring in some tourism revenue, but many if not most, come to see the palaces and other landmarks such as Big Ben, The Houses of Parliament, therefore would the money be better spent on restoring and preserving these sites?

Complete Official residents list
The Royal Residences > Kensington Palace > Today

 

[Odette]

.

BBC NEWS | UK Politics | Kensington Palace: Who lives there
Queen to pay £120,000 palace rent for the Kents - Telegraph

Incendentley Kensington Palace only costs the taxpayer £100,000 a year in unkeep at the moment not millions of pounds as other residences do.[/quote]

Thank you for your clarification. I have gone in Kensignton Palace but at this moment I draw a blank so I cannot remember whether there is an admission fee or not. However there is a gift shop so I suppose there is some sort of income to defray some of the costs of running it.
I suspect all arrangements about giving the sovereign's assets to the Crown and getting the amount they get back had to be negotiated with friendly to the Monarchy Prime Ministers. No? There must be some sort of advantage for the Queen to keep this arrangement with the government.
I would have loved to write my house over to the name of the City if they would send me a check each year to maintain it, let me live there rent free and have them absorb the property and other taxes.

 

[Duchess]

only £100, 000 a year maybe but that's only for one place you have to remember that these palaces bring in a lot of money as well and rightfully so as the cost to maintain them is enormous. one of the best things about the uk is the history and longevity of it buildings and these palaces and castles are all part of it.

 

[tommy1716]

Does the Queen pay members of the royal family more than their civil list payments? Having read about the civil list i was surprised to find that hte Queen REpays the amonts to members of the royal family, the Treasury paying the amount and then being reimbursed by the Queen. This means the Queen can claim tax back on the amounts she pays, according to Wikipedia (Civil list - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). However the civil list amounts have stayed the same for many many years, so does the Queen pay her family more but just not say so by having the amounts changed on the civil list?

If this is not true where do you think members of the royal family get their income, i mean when you take into acount staff costs, travel, clothing etc for poublic engsgments that doesnt leave alot for private holidays, food etc does it?

Pehaps this answers my own question
QUEEN TO THE RESCUE IN ANNE'S CASH CRISIS | Sunday Mirror | Find Articles at BNET
Though i have to say i don't know whether to beleive it or not.

 

[Claire]

I don't think any of the royals, except the Wales are actually well off. More than two thirds of their money is to pay for staff and then they have to buy clothes to keep us happy.
I laughed when I heard that Prince Philip and Prince Edward go to the public library as they couldn't afford to buy books, but the sad thing is counting your pennies helps.

 

[Odette]

I remember reading a long time ago that Prince Philip brought Buckingham Palace to the 20th century so to speak trying to streamline and economize.
Isn't it refreshing to read that the Royals count their pennies instead of wasting it? I love it.