The Royal Finances

[Claire]

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

[tommy1716]

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

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

[Russophile]

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

[Warren]

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

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

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

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

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

[branchg]

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

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

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

[COUNTESS]

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

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

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

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

[Skydragon]

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

Buckingham Palace valued at close to £1 billion - Telegraph

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

That she receives from the state.

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

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by muriel

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

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

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

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

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

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

[muriel]

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

[Skydragon]

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

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


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

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by muriel

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

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

[kimebear]

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

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

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by kimebear

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ada]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

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

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

[kimebear]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

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

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

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


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

and also:

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

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

House of Commons Hansard Debates for 11 Feb 1993

Which quotes:

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

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

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

Amusingly enough was also this quote:

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

We see how well that worked out for them.

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

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ada

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

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

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

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

[kimebear]

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

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

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by kimebear

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

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