Royal Wealth and Finances 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
One thing I learnt from this was that the staff Christmas party is only every second year, already a cutback. So HM's already made a big saving there. Strange how BP should choose this as the big sacrifice when it's not taxpayers' money and the royal family aren't making any sacrifice at all.

It wouldn't need to cost much more than the usual staff evening meal, with the exception that HM and a few royals would be there.
 
The party wasn't just a regular evening meal. It is a full dress banquet, dancing, open bar etc. Plus I believe it was catered so no one would need to work at it. Not everyone lives at the Palace either. They wouldn't all have dinner there.

Each employee does get a gift from the Queen.
 
It is the type of publicity drive rarely embarked upon by a member of the Royal Family.
First, Prince Charles went on his ‘green tour’ of the UK to promote his work on environmental issues. Then he opened up the gardens of his London home, Clarence House, for a five-day garden party.
Now he has given a rare interview in this month’s edition of American magazine Vanity Fair to promote his green manifesto, Harmony: A New Way Of Looking At Our World.
Described as a ‘blueprint for a more balanced world’, the book bemoans *society’s emphasis on the material and makes an impassioned plea to return to a more natural, less complicated way of life. ...​
Click to expand...
 
Exactly - in fact cutting back these employees at this time would be awful as that would be putting people out of work.
 
muriel said:
He could have 500 employees, as far as I am concerned, as they are paid for by the Duchy of Cornwall and not the public purse!
Click to expand...

If I had to do in a day what either Charles or Camilla do a day, there's NO way in the world I'd make it through without someone that would do them little decisions .. what to wear.. what shoes go with this etc.. Let alone with public engagements all day then to come home and be my own secretary and answer all letters myself? Its just not humanly possible. Trust me.. by that time I'd probably not brush my teeth but fall into bed exhausted..shoes on and all. Having a warm bath drawn and ready wouldn't be a luxury.. it'd be a necessity.

The people in Charles and Camilla's employ have a specific role to fill and they're doing it nicely. They care for specific interests of both Charles and Camilla where they cannot do it themselves.

I remember watching on the History channel once about 'what the (era) did". To actually have the job of the Royal Butt Wiper (and yes there was one back then) one had to be of very high standards and respected member of the aristocracy I believe to wipe his royal butt. But anyways.. Charles and Camilla might employ 124 folks but I bet they are 124 folks that are devoted to what they do.
 
Iluvbertie said:
Exactly - in fact cutting back these employees at this time would be awful as that would be putting people out of work.
Click to expand...

Its good to agree occassionally! :flowers:
 
Spending Review 2010: The Queen agrees to cut total Royal Household spending - Telegraph

The Queen and the Royal Family will have to live to a budget under changes to the way it is funded by Government, George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

The Queen has agreed to cut total Royal Household spending by 14% in 2012/13, Mr Osborne said, adding that grants will be frozen in cash terms for a year.

After that, the Royal Household will receive a new sovereign support grant linked to a portion of the revenue of the Crown Estate.

BBC News - Spending Review: Royal family to face 14% cuts

The Queen is to play her part in the cuts being made throughout the UK, Chancellor George Osborne has announced in his Spending Review.

He said that, having already accepted a one-year freeze in Civil List pay next year, the Queen had also agreed spending cuts of 14% by the Royal household in 2012-13.

Spending review 2010: Royal family's civil list to be replaced by a single grant | UK news | guardian.co.uk

The royal family faces the largest shakeup in its finances for 250 years following George Osborne's announcement that the civil list, which funds the Queen's official duties, will be replaced from 2013-14 by a "sovereign support grant".

The move means that the current system of a civil list, agreed for a 10 year period, and three different grants-in-aid, providing government funding for specific expenditure on royal palaces, communications and transport for official business, will be replaced by a single grant determined annually.
 
New deal announced in cuts means royals could be BETTER off | Mail Online

The Queen stands to gain millions of pounds a year in extra funding, even as the rest of the country suffers from swingeing Government cuts, it emerged yesterday.
The Royal Household’s budget is set to rocket under an overhaul that will see the sovereign share in the profits from the immensely lucrative Crown Estate for the first time in 250 years.
The royals are expected to benefit annually from a 15 per cent slice of the £6.6billion property portfolio’s profits when the new ‘sovereign support grant’ is introduced, Treasury sources revealed last night.
Click to expand...
 
There was a comment about that written by someone, I didn't understand what he meant.
But some of the comments are quite ridiculous.
 
muriel said:
I guess HM always has the option of scrapping the deal that George III entered into, and keeping all of the income from the Crown Estate! :)
Click to expand...

Before George III made that deal, the monarch was also responsible for paying for the entire civil government of the kingdom. If the Queen scrapped that deal (which she would no sooner do than dismiss Parliament and rule as an absolute monarch), she would have to use it to pay for the police, the National Health Service, the salaries and pensions of civil servants, roads, etc., in addition to the operation of the monarchy. While the revenue from the Crown Estate would pay for the monarchy several times over, it pales in comparison to the costs of running a nation, as was becoming evident when George III surrendered it (and responsibility for paying for the civil government of the country) to the Treasury.

I'm not quite sure why the amount of money given to pay for the monarchy was indexed to the profits made by the Crown Estate, really. It feeds into the popular misconception that it's personal property of the Queen, when really it's only tangentially related to the costs of the monarchy.
 
Last edited:
Finally we can have an independent monarchy that isn't reliant on Governments for hand outs. I hope it's worth as much as the Mail reports it might be...
 
Giving back the crown estate

Cadiva said:
It's not automatic that the Crown Lands belong to Parliament and the British people, it's simply been tradition that every Monarch since George III has continued to give up the revenue from them in return for the fixed payments from the Civil List.
Click to expand...

A number of members of parliament have disputed the notion that this arrangement could be broken if the monarchy were dissolved. The idea is that the lands were confiscated by the state, and the reaffirmation with each new monarch is just a meaningless ritual.

I am not so sure. I think if the monarchy were dissolved, that Prince Charles would go to court to fight for some (if not all ) of the crown estate. In particular I think he would claim Windsor Castle as the family birthright.

Though the crown estate is very valuable, it seems to be worth about the same as the personal property of the Duke of Westminster. I think that there is an idea out there that the possessor of the crown estate would be the wealthiest man in the world, but it is not an unprecedented fortune.
 
I have read that the revenue that the Monarch turn over to the gov't is far more than what they get back from the gov't in Civil List. So in a sense, the Crown is helping supporting the country with its revenue. It'll be interesting to see whether LEGALLY the Crown Estate really belongs to the gov't (just held in trust by the Monarch) or to the Monarch himself/herself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The revenue from the Crown estate was £300m in 2009-2010, which is almost 8 times the support given to the royal household for palace maintenance, travel, and the civil list.

Head of State support for 2009 was £38.2 million (including VAT of £1.9 million), compared to £41.5 in 2008.


2009/10 revenue by portfolio for the Crown Estate, excluding service charges:
Urban £221.4m
Marine £46.6m
Rural £25.1m
Windsor £6.6m

2009/10 property valuation including indirect investments, excluding service charges:
Urban £4.6bn
Rural £972m
Marine £444m
Windsor £177m
Total £6,193m

But naysayers believe that this comparison is illusionary. In 1760 the crown turned over responsibilities to the government that are now thousands of times higher than the crown estate revenue. The world is vastly different than it was in 1760. By 1750 the English population is estimated to have been 5.74 million, probably similar to the level prior to the mortality crises of the 14th century with the Black Death. So what percent of the £500 million budget should be covered by the crown estate?

While the value of the crown estate is large, it is still less than the estimated worth of the Duke of Westminster at £6,750m . His fortune was mostly assembled by the land purchases in London after the great plague .

Sir Richard Grosvenor, (9 January 1585 – 14 September 1645) was the 1st Baronet (of Eaton), but the family had been reasonably wealthy for almost a hundred years. The Great Plague was in (1665–1666) which killed 20% of London. The family assembled it's most valuable land afterwards.

In 1677 Grosvenor married; he was aged 21 and his wife, Mary Davies, was only 12. She was the daughter of a scrivener and had inherited land to the west of London. This was part of the Manor of Eia (or Ebury) and Mary's portion consisted of "swampy meads" .The area was later to become the Mayfair, Park Lane and Belgravia areas of London
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Crown Estate revenues weren't the monarch's personal income before George III, and they were never solely for the upkeep of the monarchy. They were applied towards the costs civil government of the country (including the monarchy, but also many other things). As time went on and running the country become more expensive, Parliament started to supplement the money with various tax revenues. Eventually the Crown Estate revenues were only a small part of the money that the King (and ultimately the Treasury) got. The arrangement made by George III in 1760 was more of a change in accounting than the King surrendering his personal funds to the government. Before that, the money went to the Treasury to be used to run the country. Afterwards, it had to be appropriated by Parliament like all of the other state revenue.
 
That's correct. Constitutionally, the revenues of the Crown Estate were already in the hands of Parliament by 1760, which is ultimately supreme law in the State, not The Crown. The arrangement made by George III was simply affirming in a formal manner what had already long been reality. With the exception of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, the Crown was subject to the will of Parliament for funding of the monarchy.

That said, it does make sense for Parliament to alter the arrangement to allow the monarchy a degree of independence from politics. The fact is The Queen has to constantly beg for adequate funds just to maintain the upkeep of the various palaces, including masonry work and plumbing, that are essential to any property and do not belong to her personally. The funding and maintenance of the Crown property should be done without question every year.
 
Royals And The Recession

Hi everyone,

I thought this might be an interesting and fun debate. Just been reading a story describing that many organisations that are funded by the taxpayer, much like the Royal Family, are facing 20% cuts. So, imagine the Royal Family have to make 20% cuts, and you are in charge. Who/what would you cut, and why?

Remember, this is all hypothetical, and nothing that you post will actually happen in reality. Largely as I don't have the authority to make it happen.

Princess Eujonny
 
Cuts are inevitable. If things get really bad, the BRF will have to kick in their own money. It could get to the point where the Queen would only maintain her private properties and the rest of the old piles: St. James, Buck House, Kensington, etc. might become actual piles.

If you're alluding to further cuts to the Civil List, I could see a reduction happening. However, this would cause less and less exposure of the soverign and her representatives to the people. I wouldn't work if I wasn't being paid, so would never criticize the BRF if they decided to recede into private life.
 
I know what your saying here KA, and it makes our sovereign appear more human IMO, as deciding which of your Central London pads to sell/rent out is a decision we all face in our daily lives.

Do people think the royals should be doing more to cut costs however? Or do we think that the fact that they are a big tourist attraction means that they should continue to spend spend spend?
 
Annual Financial Reports

The Queen’s Official Expenditure for 2010-11 funded by the equivalent of the new Sovereign Grant has decreased by 5.3%. The total expenditure in the year was £32.1m.

Cost-cutting Queen saves the British taxpayer £1.8m, Buckingham Palace accounts reveal | Mail Online

The cost of keeping the monarchy fell £1.8 million last year under the new sovereign grant system to be introduced by the Government, Buckingham Palace accounts showed today.

The Queen's official expenditure for 2010/11 funded by the equivalent of the sovereign grant fell 5.3 per cent from £33.9 million in 2010 to £32.1 million.

The change in the calculation comes after MPs approved historic reforms to the royal finances last week which could see a cut to the Royal Family's budget.

Read more: Cost-cutting Queen saves the British taxpayer £1.8m, Buckingham Palace accounts reveal | Mail Online

Not to make to much of a point but if the Queen can cut her spending why can't Charles?
​
 
tommy100 said:
Not to make to much of a point but if the Queen can cut her spending why can't Charles?
[/COLOR][/LEFT]
Click to expand...

Erm, because the Queen's office didn't have to deal with the day to day details of the enormous Royal Wedding? Towards the end of 2010 Clarence House received more than 11,000 pieces of mail over and above the many thousands they already receive. Staff were hired on a short term basis to deal with all this mail.

Additionally, Charles took on 3 extra staff to work for William, Harry and Catherine as they take on more and more public duties.

And finally, Charles' expenditure for the preceding year was artificially low because the cost of his trip to Canada was paid by the Canadian government. Since then Charles has taken on overseas trips, at the request of the British government, which are paid for by the taxpayer.

It really annoys me that the UK press chose not to look at the detail but, instead, to go for the headline most likely to get people's blood boiling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
Royal Wealth and Finances 2: Sep 2022 -
Replies
17
Views
2K
Somebody
Somebody
Somebody
British Royal Family and the Media
Replies
0
Views
360
Somebody
Somebody
LadyFinn
Crown Princess Victoria & Prince Daniel's Official Visit to UK: Nov 29-Dec 1, 2023
Replies
17
Views
3K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn
Marengo
Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 -
2 3
Replies
78
Views
8K
Tatiana Maria
T
Marengo
British Royal Family Current Events 11: Sep 2022 -
7 8 9
Replies
250
Views
12K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom