The Royal Finances

[Smartie2091]

I was wondering if any of the british royals had to sign prenups? like Prince Phillip, Diana, Fergi?

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Smartie2091

I was wondering if any of the british royals had to sign prenups? like Prince Phillip, Diana, Fergi?

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.

[Heidi P.]

branchg,
Thanks for clarifying the prenup situation in Royal marriage. So many people think that being Royal or marrying a Royal means instant wealth. It is more complicated then that. To marry a Prince, Crown Prince, King, etc. doesn't mean one is given access to Royal Family Weath, such as property, artifacts, jewels, other assests, etc.

[florawindsor]

Originally Posted by branchg

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

doesn't Diana receive a lot of money from her father&grandma when she got married? (i remember that from some book, whose name i don't remember now)

and why wasn't Prince Charles paying for his divorced wife instead of his mother? i remember reading he was very poor after paying Diana a lot of money(which again i don't remember the source)

[Avalon]

Queen Elizabeth didn't pay anything. Prince Charles did. He gave Diana basically everything he had. Check out this one.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...693836685.html

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Avalon

Queen Elizabeth didn't pay anything. Prince Charles did. He gave Diana basically everything he had. Check out this one.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...693836685.html

As The Prince of Wales Charles only has the income of the duchy of Cornwall - the duchy's possessions are basically tied up in a trust, of which he is the trustee and has a right to all the winnings. Charles spends the winnings by paying for his and his immediate family's upkeep, giving money to charities or organizing events for his charities and by reinvesting the money into the duchy in order to secure the trust for the future heir to the throne.
He does not have his own wealth in terms of having savings or personal investments. He does not need to think this way, so why should he?

Edit: Just read the afore mentioned article and it seems he has managed to keep the trust fund of the duchy not only stable but to make enough money out of it to put a bit of as a personal fortune aside.

And I read, too, that his mother lent him part of the money Diana asked for. The queen, after all, possesses the personal wealth of the souverain and has money she can spent the way she likes beyond the trust funds of the duchy of Lancaster.

I'm not so sure though that Charles minded the money too much as he knew Diana then for quite some time and knew that she was not the one to get into debts easily. While she had been quite expensive in the first years of their marriage she had managed quite well to stick to the money she had inherited from her father's side and had lived within her income (or so I read in the books about the princess). Thus Charles could be pretty sure that most of the money would end up with his own heirs anyway one day - I don't think the chance was very big that Diana would not only marry again but become a mother again. She had reached a certain age and a certain position where returning to the confines of motherhood was probably not really attractive for a mother of two wonderful boys. (That's mere speculation, of course, but then there is a plausibility Charles thought about things like that). And it is usus in the aristocracy from which Diana derived to think foremost of family when it comes to will personal wealth to somebody.

So I guess it was not that big deal for Charles even though it hurts, of course.

[Elizabeth Harris]

I was very surprised to read that Diana bancrupted Charles. Since the info came directly from Charles' financial advisor, it must be true. I wonder if Camilla signed a postnup.

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

As The Prince of Wales Charles only has the income of the duchy of Cornwall - the duchy's possessions are basically tied up in a trust, of which he is the trustee and has a right to all the winnings. Charles spends the winnings by paying for his and his immediate family's upkeep, giving money to charities or organizing events for his charities and by reinvesting the money into the duchy in order to secure the trust for the future heir to the throne.
He does not have his own wealth in terms of having savings or personal investments. He does not need to think this way, so why should he?

Edit: Just read the afore mentioned article and it seems he has managed to keep the trust fund of the duchy not only stable but to make enough money out of it to put a bit of as a personal fortune aside.

And I read, too, that his mother lent him part of the money Diana asked for. The queen, after all, possesses the personal wealth of the souverain and has money she can spent the way she likes beyond the trust funds of the duchy of Lancaster.

I'm not so sure though that Charles minded the money too much as he knew Diana then for quite some time and knew that she was not the one to get into debts easily. While she had been quite expensive in the first years of their marriage she had managed quite well to stick to the money she had inherited from her father's side and had lived within her income (or so I read in the books about the princess). Thus Charles could be pretty sure that most of the money would end up with his own heirs anyway one day - I don't think the chance was very big that Diana would not only marry again but become a mother again. She had reached a certain age and a certain position where returning to the confines of motherhood was probably not really attractive for a mother of two wonderful boys. (That's mere speculation, of course, but then there is a plausibility Charles thought about things like that). And it is usus in the aristocracy from which Diana derived to think foremost of family when it comes to will personal wealth to somebody.

So I guess it was not that big deal for Charles even though it hurts, of course.

[HRH Kimetha]

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

I was under the assumption that Prince Charles was the one who paid out the monies to Diana and not the Queen.

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

As The Prince of Wales Charles only has the income of the duchy of Cornwall ...He does not have his own wealth in terms of having savings or personal investments. He does not need to think this way, so why should he?

I don't understand why Charles hasn't invested in a savings or checking account above his portfolio. Doesn't he have a 401 or CD's in this modern age of financial management? Does any of the royals have any of these? I am somewhat taken back that savings/checking accounts are not considered smart in putting money aside for a 'rainy day'. Perhaps one day, the monarchy could become taken over by the anti-monarchists and put out to pasture and forced to leave behind the Duchies. When that is done, where would they get their money to live on? No savings/checking/401/CD's I don't believe is a good idea.

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by branchg

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.

so technically they're not really wealthy yet but will be when they come into their inheritance??

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Duchess

so technically they're not really wealthy yet but will be when they come into their inheritance??

William and Harry are certainly very wealthy by most standards for young men their age. At this point, they are receiving a sizable income from their mother's trust, their great-grandmother's trust, plus whatever Harry may be receiving from his Spencer trust.

I don't think we have to worry too much.

[kelly9480]

Diana inherited money from her great-grandmother when she turned 18, and inherited from her father when he died in 1992. She didn't get anything when she married.

Charles had savings in the form of a stock portfolio. That's what he liquidated to pay off Diana. He does need to provide for Harry, because he's not going to get any money from the monarchy.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by kelly9480

Diana inherited money from her great-grandmother when she turned 18, and inherited from her father when he died in 1992. She didn't get anything when she married.

Charles had savings in the form of a stock portfolio. That's what he liquidated to pay off Diana. He does need to provide for Harry, because he's not going to get any money from the monarchy.

Well, he already did that handsomely by paying Diana - Harry surely is better off than prince Andrew ever was.

[kelly9480]

Half of Diana's estate went to the taxman, and what was left was split evenly between William & Harry. EIIR has allegedly established trusts for her grandchildren, so Harry would also have that, but a lot depends on how much money Harry spends and he's developed a taste for expensive vacations. His father won't be footing the bill for those forever, so Harry will have to dip into his own money.

[pinkylou]

diana got £17,000,000 when she got divorced, it is believed that her divorce settlement is the biggest in british law history( the average is about £10 million), harry is set to inherit half of his mothers' estate(including jewellery and personal property),£25,000,000 ( making him the 4th richest teenager in Britain according to forbes), he has also inherited a sum from his maternal grandmother and grandfather, the Queen mother( believed to be £5 million) and the Queen. He is also set to inherit a sum from all his godparents.
harry is set to inherit all this due to diana's and royal family's determination for him to be able to cope in being a spare to william financially.

[kelly9480]

Originally Posted by pinkylou

diana got £17,000,000 when she got divorced, it is believed that her divorce settlement is the biggest in british law history( the average is about £10 million), harry is set to inherit half of his mothers' estate(including jewellery and personal property),£25,000,000 ( making him the 4th richest teenager in Britain according to forbes), he has also inherited a sum from his maternal grandmother and grandfather, the Queen mother( believed to be £5 million) and the Queen. He is also set to inherit a sum from all his godparents.
harry is set to inherit all this due to diana's and royal family's determination for him to be able to cope in being a spare to william financially.

Harry probably didn't inherit anything from Earl Spencer. Earl Spencer left each of his daughters stocks worth (in 1992 terms) around £5 million. How much that's worth now depends on how well that portfolio has been managed, but no sources have stated Spencer left his grandchildren money.

Considering the QM's debts, some sources doubt she ever established trusts for her grandchildren, which contradicts the long-held belief that she did, but of course, no one knows for sure outside the Windsors and their financial advisers.

Diana's wealth (in cash & stocks) was around £22m at her death. Her jewellery was estimated to be worth about £2m by Andrew Morton in that Windsor Wealth book, but Morton's estimates purposefully didn't take into account royal provenance, so the jewels would actually be worth much more. There's some doubt whether Harry could inherit evenly in the jewellery. Obviously, pieces that came from the Windsors' historical collection, like the tiara and the emerald necklace, will go to William so as to stay in the family. Is the rest of the stuff worth enough to make up for William getting the historical pieces? I think a lot would depend on which son got the sapphire brooch.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by kelly9480

I think a lot would depend on which son got the sapphire brooch.

Wait till they are wed and we'll see

[pinkylou]

Originally Posted by kelly9480

Harry probably didn't inherit anything from Earl Spencer. Earl Spencer left each of his daughters stocks worth (in 1992 terms) around £5 million. How much that's worth now depends on how well that portfolio has been managed, but no sources have stated Spencer left his grandchildren money.

Considering the QM's debts, some sources doubt she ever established trusts for her grandchildren, which contradicts the long-held belief that she did, but of course, no one knows for sure outside the Windsors and their financial advisers.

Diana's wealth (in cash & stocks) was around £22m at her death. Her jewellery was estimated to be worth about £2m by Andrew Morton in that Windsor Wealth book, but Morton's estimates purposefully didn't take into account royal provenance, so the jewels would actually be worth much more. There's some doubt whether Harry could inherit evenly in the jewellery. Obviously, pieces that came from the Windsors' historical collection, like the tiara and the emerald necklace, will go to William so as to stay in the family. Is the rest of the stuff worth enough to make up for William getting the historical pieces? I think a lot would depend on which son got the sapphire brooch.

a very well respected royal correspondent in the UK James Whittaker, has said in many british tv programmes that half of diana's estate will evenly be divided between her sons as stated in her will, william won't be taking all her jewellery due to the fact that one day he will be king, and also she felt that no distinction should arise between her two sons. in another documentary, one of the queen's cousin did verify that the queen has a trust for all her grandchildren including anne's children.
and yes earl spencer has opened a trust for harry, diana's brother also spoke of it in a programme i once watched over here in the UK ( i believe it was tonight with trevor macdonald)

[pinkylou]

it is believed that one of the major factors in the breakdown of the york's marriage( apart from infidelity on the duchess' part) was their financial troubles( the duchess being in debt), bearing in mind the lifestyle they have to lead, which include parties, donations, clothes, jewellery, staff, household and children. prince andrew's allowance wasn't good enough( he didn't inherit much for anyone or had a trust in his name), so i guess the royals have learnt their lesson and are better prepared this time around.

[Warren]

This is an interesting topic, and although it started off as "Prenups" (which was answered pretty quickly) it has continued into broader areas.

New thread title: 'The Royals and Finances'.

Warren
Britsh Forums moderator

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by pinkylou

it is believed that one of the major factors in the breakdown of the york's marriage( apart from infidelity on the duchess' part) was their financial troubles( the duchess being in debt), bearing in mind the lifestyle they have to lead, which include parties, donations, clothes, jewellery, staff, household and children. prince andrew's allowance wasn't good enough( he didn't inherit much for anyone or had a trust in his name), so i guess the royals have learnt their lesson and are better prepared this time around.

I always thought and still think that one reason why Sarah and Andrew decided to get a dicorce was that this would free Sarah to use her fame in order to make money. What other way was there besides asking the queen (again) for it. Maybe the queen even payed some of the debts or lent the money to better conditions than a bank would?

I have no proof besides the fact that it was written in several sources that Sarah managed to get rid of her debts (even in her own book), but still is a friend of her former husband.

Plus she was able to cash in on her former Royality in order to get money to spent on her daughters. All that would have been impossible if she still was married to Prince Andrew.

It surely wasn't the only reason but still I think it was one that was considered as positive. Especially as neither Sarah nor Andrew flaunt lovers in public but are seen together quite often.